INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: A SURVEY

PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA

The Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference held in London from the 8th to 19th September naturally attracted the largest amount of attention of the public. It is necessary that we should have a right perspective in estimating the significance of the discussions at the conference, in so far as they related to Britain’s entry into the European Common Market.

This entry is the logical outcome of a historical process that has been going on in Europe for a long time. Attempts at the unification of Western and Central Europe have been made on several occasions in the past. The efforts of the Hapsburgs and the Bourbons and of Napolean and Hitler have all been of this character. But they have not achieved permanent success. Culturally Western Europe is really one. It is the Europe which values individual freedom and the spirit of democracy. But it has also been the area where, in modern times, nationalism and national rivalries exercised a dominant influence. As a result of the tragic experience gained in the two world wars and the establishment of Communism in Russia, the West Europeans as well as the West Germans have come to realise the inadequacies of nationalism in the new world set-up. There has consequently arisen a strong movement for bringing about the economic and political unification of Western and Central Europe. It is this that has given birth to the European Economic Community, which is only a prelude to the formation of a United States of Europe in the years to come. The age of nationalism is over so far as Europe is concerned. The national State is to-day too small a unit for either political or economic purposes. No nation is able to defend itself unless it enters into military alliance with several other States. And, for purposes of trade, a nation needs an ever-expanding market.

It was by means of temporary alliances that in the past the European nations tried to defend themselves against a common aggressor. They did so against Louis XIV, against Napoleon, against Kaiser William II and against Hitler. Such temporary alliances were adequate to meet the dangers in the past as the dangers themselves were temporary. But the case is different to-day. The danger to the liberties of the nations of Europe comes from the U. S. S. R., and this is a permanent danger. It can only be met by a permanent Union among the States on this side of the iron curtain. The N. A. T. O. was the first step in that direction. But far-seeing statesmen have come to the conclusion that the European unity should be built on firmer foundations and that all the free nations in the continent should be integrated into a single economic and political community. The fact that France and Germany forgot their centuries of rivalry and are actively promoting the cause of West European political union can only be understood in the light of these new historical developments.

There is also another factor which has strengthened this desire for political and economic unity. Though the West European nations welcome the alliance with the United States, they also feel that, so long as they deal with that country as separate States, the alliance is bound to be unequal. For four centuries in the modern age Western Europe played the leading part in international affairs. That old position is gone and its place has been taken by the United States and the U. S. S. R. But the West European States do not want to become the satellites of the United States, however serious might be the danger from Soviet Russia. And the only way in which they can escape from the satellite position, is by forming themselves into a United States of Europe, which will be, with its large population and rich industrial resources, the equal in several respects of the United States of America.

Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community can be best understood only in the light of this West European movement for economic and political unity. Here again a reference has to be made to the past role of Britain in the affairs of Europe. She generally followed an insular policy. She built her Empire outside Europe and extended her trade, into other continents. So far as Europe was concerned, she tried to maintain a balance of power among the various States, so that no one State might dominate over the whole continent. Whenever the balance was upset–and only when the balance was upset–did she intervene in European affairs. She became a leading member of every grand alliance directed ‘against the aggressive and expanding European State, and she withdrew when the danger disappeared.

At the present day it is not in her interests to keep herself aloof from the affairs of continental Europe. She has lost her empire. Though there is the Commonwealth with the countries of which she carries an extensive trade, she has also close commercial connections with the richer markets of Europe. Her influence in European affairs will become less if she keeps aloof from an integrated Europe. The leadership will pass into the hands of France and West Germany. Very few among the Britishers–whatever be the party to which they belong–can reconcile themselves to the idea of their country which occupied an imperial position in the past, losing now and in the future all influence in directing the affairs of Europe. Moreover the danger of the U. S. S. R. dominating the whole of Europe is not a temporary one, and no temporary alliance can prevent it. The forces that have driven the national States of Europe towards greater integration among themselves, are also the forces that are driving Britain into the European Economic Community and the European Political Union which is soon to follow.

It is considerations like these that have influenced the British Conservative Party and Prime Minister Macmillan in their determination to join the E. C. M. The only alternative to this is for Britain to lose all her influence in the politics of Europe and become a lone satellite of the United States.

But we should also understand that her entry into the E. C. M. is bound to bring a large amount of loss to almost all the members of the Commonwealth who have been receiving preferential treatment in the matter of their exports to Britain, for nearly a generation. As a member of the E. C. M. she will not be in a position to admit Commonwealth commodities on preferential terms into her market, which will become a part of the European Market. She will have to abide by the rules and regulations of the Common Market. Naturally the Prime Ministers of almost all the Commonwealth countries opposed her entry into the E. C. M. But they have also realised that, in spite of their opposition, Britain might not have any choice except to enter the Common Market. The utmost they could do was to call on Britain to press upon the six constituent members of the Market the need for continuing the preferences to Commonwealth commodities until they enter into permanent agreements with the E. C. M.

There is no doubt whatever that, with the ending of the preferences, the Commonwealth countries will have to face a severe economic crisis. They will not have the same markets for their commodities as they now have. Even if markets for agricultural commodities, like tea and jute, may not become narrowed, those for manufactured goods, like cotton textiles, are sure to become narrower. There is a widespread impression among the European countries that in India, Pakistan and other Asian States labourers are not paid adequate wages and that this is the main reason why they are able to produce their manufactures cheaper than the European factories. This is, however, a misconception, as labour productivity is low in Asian countries. Any reduction in the volume of exports will intensify the acuteness of the foreign exchange problem in these developing countries and will retard the execution of the Five-Year Plans. All these points have been brought to the notice of the British representatives at the conference and, although at present there is not much hope of the European six granting further concessions, they will soon see the folly of retarding the economic progress of the developing countries, and set things right.

The presence of Britain in the Common Market will do much to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth. Political considerations are also bound to have their weight on the deliberations of the Common Market countries. They cannot afford to neglect completely the interests of countries like India and Pakistan, whose goodwill and friendship will be a great asset to them in their conduct of world affairs. Even to-day they are extending a great deal of economic aid to these countries, and they are sure to realise that, as Pandit Nehru and others put it, more important than economic aid is the provision of trading facilities. One, therefore, need not take a highly pessimistic view of Britain’s entry into the E. C. M. In the present-day world her presence in it will be more conducive to world peace and to the maintenance of the interests of the Commonwealth than her keeping away from it.

Will her entry into the E. C. M. break up the Commonwealth? It doesn’t look like that. It is not because of the possibility of securing special economic advantages that India and other countries have chosen to become members of the Commonwealth. The value of the membership lies in giving opportunity for the Prime Ministers to exchange views on matters of world importance in an atmosphere of complete freedom and influencing each other’s policies. It is on a powerful sentiment that the Commonwealth rests, and there is no reason why with Britain’s entry this sentiment should become weak. As Pandit Nehru put it in his Press conference in London: “The Commonwealth’s real value lies in its extreme flexibility. This enabled people from the four corners of the world to gather together in a friendly way and discuss matters frankly and yet be able to come to some broad general conclusions. I think that this new type of association is far better than an association which limits each country. That is why the Commonwealth has succeeded in spite of differing opinions.” He also expressed the view that the Commonwealth Conference and its deliberations have not in any way weakened the Commonwealth. This, on the whole, is the correct view.

The Geneva talks on disarmament have not made any progress. When the Conference went into recess on september 7, the Soviet delegate told the other delegates: “We are no closer to an agreement on general and complete disarmament than on the day (five months ago) when the negotiations started.” The United States delegate expressed more or less the same view: “There was agreement that there must be disarmament, but we are not yet agreed on the method and the means.” Mr. Arthur Lall of India said that unless the two sides got beyond the tendency to oppose each other, progress would be an elusive fact.

Even the talks on the Test Ban have ended in a deadlock. A committee of scientists from the United States, Britain, Russia and a dozen other countries, appointed by the United Nations, recently reported that continued nuclear testing could seriously harm mankind for thousands of years to come. All the same, both the nuclear powers are determined on continuing the tests. It only shows their callousness. The whole world is woefully unable to bring pressure upon them to change their attitude. The Western powers have proposed a limited treaty for outlawing all tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and under water, without insisting on “on-the-spot inspection” on which they were hitherto very keen. It is only in regard to underground tests that they want to have inspection. The Soviets have not agreed even to this limited treaty. They fight shy of inspection as they fear that it would lead to spying. A way out of the difficulty has been suggested by eight of the delegates of the non-aligned countries, and it is hoped that, when the conference meets again; their suggestions will receive consideration.

Neither Soviet Russia nor the United States want a nuclear war. It is, therefore, beyond the comprehension of ordinary people why they still continue to test new nuclear weapons and spend untold wealth on them.

It is good news that the Dutch and the Indonesians came to an agreement on the West Irian question. The Dutch have agreed to withdraw. The United Nations will take over the administration of the territory immediately, and in May 1963 it will hand it over to the Indonesians. There is provision for some kind of plebiscite after a time and it will decide whether the West Irians prefer independence or absorption into the Indonesian State. For the time being, the Dutch colonialism has disappeared, and its place is taken by Indonesian colonialism. The, Papuans who inhabit West Irian have little in common with the Indonesians.

While some settlement has been arrived at in West Irian, tension is mounting up in Cambodia in Indo-China and in Cuba. Cambodia has been complaining that it is being invaded by Thai and South Vietnam troops and that in both of them there is an American element. The Cambodian Government threaten that, unless its neutrality is guaranteed by the great powers, it will call in Chinese help to ward off the attacks of its neighbours. Before Cambodia becomes another Laos, it is best that the great powers guarantee its neutrality. Americans may rest assured that the only alternative to neutrality is the establishment of China’s domination.

Cuba poses a more serious problem. It has now practically become a Communist State under the influence of Soviet Russia. It has been receiving in recent weeks enormous military supplies from that country. Kruschev has warned the United States that, in case she attacked Cuba, she should be prepared for a nuclear war. President Kennedy has mobilized 150,000 reservists in anticipation of some trouble from the island, and the U. S. Congress expressed its determination “to prevent, by whatever means may be necessary, including the use of arms, the Marxist-Leninist regime in Cuba from extending by force or threat of force its aggressive or subversive activities to any part of the hemisphere”. What worries the United States is not so much the Communist Government in Cuba but the possibility of Communism extending to all the States in Latin America.

There is considerable unrest in all these countries and there is no stable government in any of them. Most of the regimes are of an oligarchical character doing little to improve the lot of the peasants and other sections of the people. Democracy functions only in name. To prevent the rise of Communism President Kennedy has undertaken a scheme of extensive economic aid which would result in raising the standard of the masses and put an end to the privileges of the ruling classes. But the ruling groups are not anxious to utilise the aid for these purposes. There is, therefore, a silent growth of what has come to be called a “Fidelismo” movement after Fidel Castro of Cuba, a left-wing quasi-communist movement in most States.

As a recent observer has reported: “The answer to the Communist challenge in most of these countries is not so much (President Kennedy’s) the Alliance for progress but the acceptance by the ruling classes that change is inevitable. If they do not accept it, it will come in any way, and in a form they will not like. The Communists bank on their non-acceptance.” It remains to be seen what policy the United States is going to adopt to meet a situation like this.

September 21, 1962

Back