By Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya, M.A.
THE tension between Soviet Russia and the Western
democracies which has been growing for the last two years reached its climax
during the two months of June and July and made many observers think that it
would result in the outbreak of a third world war in the very near future.
Though there is now less of pessimism on the international situation than what
existed in the second half of July there is no certainty that the risks of war
have been completely overcome. The mutual suspicion between the parties
continues to endanger the prospects of peace. This is the prominent feature of
the international situation at present.
The tension reached its height in consequence of
the Soviet blockade of the Western sectors of Berlin which had been for the
last three years if' the occupation of the Western democratic powers. But this
should not be looked at as an isolated event. It should be examined against the
background of the relationship between Soviet Russia and the Western powers in
regard to Germany during the last two years. One important fact that emerges
from a survey of this relationship is that the attempt made in the several
conferences of the foreign ministers of the four powers to settle the problem of
Germany and to determine the terms of a peace-treaty with her ended in complete
failure due to a very great extent to the obstructionist tactics adopted by
Molotov the Russian Foreign Minister. The Western powers then came to the
conclusion that no agreement with Soviet Russia was possible and they decided
on proceeding in their own way with the consolidation of their authority in the
Western zones of Germany which were in their occupation. The French were not at
first disposed to fall in entirely with the U.S.A. and Britain in regard to the
policies to be adopted towards Germany. Like the people of Czechoslovakia they
are terribly afraid of any move which might ultimately result in the revival of
Germany. They are also equally afraid of European policies which might
completely alienate Russia and bring about another war as they would be the
first to suffer from such a war. It was because of this attitude on their part
that the London Conference of the representatives of Britain, U.S.A., France,
and the three Benelex countries which met in June did not have a smooth sailing
at first. It was only when the French obtained a sort of assurance from the
United States that in the event of a war American troops would be kept ready to
help France that the French finally agreed to the decisions arrived at in the
conference. It was these decisions that provoked Russia to blockade the Western
sectors of Berlin especially when the French National Assembly ratified them
though it was at the end of prolonged debates.
Three of these decisions are of special importance
in understanding the subsequent course of events. The first is the development
of the industrial resources of Ruhr under the international control of the six
powers that met at the London Conference. The second relates to the union of
the three Western Zones of Germany under a federal government with Frankfurt as
its capital. The third referred to the calling of a constituent assembly of
German representatives by September 1, to frame a Constitution for the new West
German State.
Each of these provoked Soviet Russia.
De-industrialisation of Germany was regarded in the Potsdam agreement of 1945,
as a necessary element in the demilitarisation of the German people. The
decision of the London Conference to develop the industries of Ruhr–which at
all times supplied the war materials and munitions to the German Governments–
appeared to Soviet Russia to be quite opposed to the Potsdam Agreement. But the
Western powers were compelled to adopt this decision for two reasons. During
the last two years all the attempts they made to bring about the economic unity
of the Soviet and the Western Zones of Germany failed owing to the opposition
of Russia. There was therefore no prospect of West Germany which is mainly an
industrialised area getting food and other agricultural products from Eastern
Germany which is under Russian occupation. It has to get it from America and
other foreign countries and this would be possible only if it exported large
quantities of coal, iron, steel and other products. In addition to this the
development of Ruhr industries is essential if the European Recovery Programme
for which America voted millions of dollars is to succeed. There is however a
danger that this development might in future make Germany again a great
military power. Precautions had to be taken against it; and it was for this
purpose that it was decided to place the Ruhr industries under international
control. The Soviet, however, had serious objection to this decision. It had in
the first place no share in this international control. It was therefore in the
second place afraid that the Ruhr would be so developed by the Western powers
that it would become an arsenal for supplying armaments to those powers in any
future war with Russia. As there was no direct way of preventing this the
Soviet created the crisis of Berlin.
The decision to create a separate West German State
with Frankfurt as the capital was equally unwelcome to the Soviet. For the
latter wanted to establish in course of time a single government for the whole
of Germany dominated by the communist party. The London decision threw a
serious obstacle in the way of any prospect in the near future of a communist
domination over Germany as a whole. This also was responsible for the Berlin
crisis.
The immediate cause, however, of the crisis was the
currency reform introduced by the Western powers. At first it was restricted to
their zones in western Germany. But subsequently they decided on introducing it
into their sectors in Berlin also. The Soviet protested against this course on
the perfectly understandable ground that in the same city it was not desirable
to have one currency in one part and another in another part and proposed a
single currency for the whole city. The Western powers agreed to this course
provided it was under Four power control. But the Soviet wanted to have it
under their sole control to which the Western powers objected. It was then that
they decided on introducing their own currency into those sectors of Berlin
that were in their control.
This was the immediate occasion for the Russians
suspending from June 24, all communication by road, rail and canal between the
Western sectors of Berlin and Western Germany. Of course they excused
themselves on the ground that certain repairs had been undertaken and that it
was for these technical purposes that they stopped all communications. The real
reason, however, was that they wanted to make it impossible for the Western
powers to stay any longer in Berlin. As a matter of fact the position of these
powers in Berlin was rather anamolous. The portion of the city in their
occupation with its population of nearly 2.5 millions was in the heart of the
Soviet Zone of Germany and was separated from their own Zones in Western Germany
by one hundred miles. All their communications had to pass through the Soviet
Zone before they could reach their sectors in Berlin. It is true of course that
the Russians were under an obligation to permit them to make use of all the
means of communication with Berlin, and they had so permitted them these three
years although there was a change of policy during the last four months. But
the Russians were no longer prepared to continue the permission, now that as a
result of the London Conference, Western Germany was becoming consolidated
politically and economically under the Western powers. They argued that the
Westerners should therefore have no place in Eastern Germany and they should
evacuate Berlin. So long as they occupied a portion of the city it would be
impossible for the Russians to consolidate their power over Eastern Germany and
make it a communist State of which Berlin should be the natural capital.
The Western powers were not willing to evacuate
Berlin under Soviet pressure although they knew that in the event of war it
would be impossible for them to hold it on. They however wanted to demonstrate
to the world that by Air they could supply the 2.5 million Berliners with food
and other essential requirements for some time at least and they have been
bringing such supplies since June 24. But this is a task which cannot be
indefinitely continued. They may bring some supplies of food but that is not
the only need that has to be satisfied. Coal, raw materials for industry,
electricity and a thousand and one other requirements of the people have to be
met and air planes, cannot be of much use in such a task. There was also a
danger that the Soviet authorities in Eastern Germany might interfere–as they
actually threatened to do–with air communications also. An alternative method
of settling the issue had to be thought of.
It was for this purpose that on July 6, the three
Western powers sent separate diplomatic notes to the Moscow Foreign Office in
which they pointed out (1) that they had as much legal right as the Russians
themselves to stay in Berlin, (2) that they would not be induced by threats,
pressure or other actions to abandon their rights, (3) that the Soviet measures
of blockade were a clear violation of existing agreements concerning the
administration of the city by the four occupying powers, (4) that the blockade
and other actions taken by the Soviet Government created an extremely serious
international situation, and (5) that if Russia first lifted the blockade the
three powers would have no objection to discuss the Berlin and other problems
in a conference with Soviet representatives.
On July 14 the Soviet replied to this diplomatic
note in which they made it clear (1) that the problem of Berlin was inseparable
from the problem of Germany as a whole, (2) that the Four-power control over
Berlin was conditional on the Four-power control over the whole of Germany, (3)
that the London decisions and the currency reforms meant the abandonment of the
Four-power control over Western Germany and its being formed into a separate
political and economic unit without the Russians having any share in its
administration, (4) that, this was a .clear violation of the Potsdam agreement,
and (5) that in consequence of this and of several other violations of that
agreement the Western powers forfeited their right to remain in Berlin. The
note, however, stated that the Russians had no objection to enter into
discussions with the Western powers provided no preliminary conditions like the
lifting of the Berlin blockade were attached to them and provided also that
they extended to all the outstanding issues relating to the Four-power control
of Germany.
These diplomatic exchanges made one point clear,
namely that neither party was anxious for an immediate war if it could be
honourably avoided and that both were willing to meet in a conference. But the
question was whether any conference was possible. The Western powers insisted
on the lifting of the blockade as a preliminary condition while the Soviet
authorities were opposed to any such condition. It was because of this
difference between them that Mr. Bevin had to tell the British House of Commons
on July 29 that things were leading to a situation which might involve the use
of force and he then observed: “We are prepared to enter into discussions with
the Soviet Government on the situation
in Berlin and we have never declined; but the British Government cannot
be expected to do this under duress–that is to say under the conditions created
by the Soviet Government.”
It was therefore with a view to smoothen matters
that the Western powers resolved among themselves to send their ambassadors to
have personal talks with Stalin himself and with Molotov before the situation
deteriorated still further and shots fired for the sake of preserving prestige.
The envoys arrived in Moscow on July 29, and had their first talks with Stalin
on August 2, and further talks with Molotov on August 6. No one is in a
position to say what the outcome of these talks would be but it may be safely
presumed that no conference is likely to be held unless the Berlin blockade is
lifted.
The Berlin crisis is the external symbol today of
the rift between Soviet Russia and the Western powers. Both parties have long
realised that the possibility of war is latent in it and have been preparing
themselves for it. In June and July some progress was made by the Western power
in that direction. One reason why they are adopting a firm attitude towards
Russia is the success they have so far achieved in their preparations and in
overcoming some of the serious obstacles that threatened to overtake them in
the course of these two months. Their preparations consisted in giving effect
to the (American) European Recovery Programme, the strengthening of the Union
of Western Europe formed in March last by the Treaty of Brussels and the
establishment of closer military relations between this Union and the United
States and Canada so that it might ultimately become a North Atlantic Union.
There was at one time a danger that the European Recovery Programme might be
torpedoed by its opponents in the American Congress. They induced the House of
Representatives to make large cuts in the funds to be spent on it but luckily
the supporters of the programme in the Senate put up a stiff fight with the
result that on June 20 the Congress voted final approval for the Marshall Aid
and from that date millions of dollars worth of goods have been flowing into
the countries of Western Europe. The programme had also to meet another danger
when some of these countries hesitated to ratify their agreements with the
United States on this subject on the ground that they imposed serious
restrictions on their economic freedom. But the ratification by England of this
agreement after a fierce debate in the House of Commons on July 6 when Sir
Stafford Cripps effectively answered all the criticism directed against it
brought round the other countries and the E.R.P. programme has now become a
settled fact. Representatives of the sixteen nations participating in it met on
July 25 in Paris and agreed on a European Payment Plan under which, “new dollar
funds will be made available to the 16 nations so that they can buy what they
need and use the money earned by exports to one country to pay for goods imported
from a third country.” This establishment of closer and more intimate economic
ties between Western Europe and the United States and among the several
Countries of Western Europe itself is an important and substantial step in
their organisation for defence against Soviet Russia and the forces of
communism fostered by her.
A week earlier the representatives of the
Governments of Britain, France, and three Benelex countries met at the Hague
and arrived at important conclusions with a view to adopt a common policy
towards all international questions including that of Germany; to consolidate
and extend their co-operation in economic and financial matters; and above all
to enter into closer military relationship with the United States and Canada.
This was the logical outcome of the talks that had been going on between the
last two countries since July 6 on problems of common defence and it is now
settled that both these will link themselves with Western Europe in any war
against Soviet Russia.
All this constitutes the positive aspect of the
steps, taken by the Western powers to strengthen themselves though the process
seems to be slow as it is bound to be in all democracies. There are some who
think that it is all so slow that it may take a long time for them to become
the equals of Soviet Russia in military matters and that if war were to break
out in the near future the Russian armies would be able to sweep everything
before them and overrun all the countries up to the Atlantic. There is much
truth in this observation.
Not only are
democracies slow but they are given to internal dissensions which weaken them
considerably in their fight with dictatorial governments like those of Soviet
Russia and other countries of Eastern Europe. In June and July examples of such
dissensions were seen France and Italy. The division between the communists and
the non-tommunists is acute in both of them. Moreover while the communists are
a well organised and consolidated party the non-communists are divided among
themselves and some of these sections are interested only in playing
politics–in joining one party at one time and another party at another and
making confusion worse confounded. This was what happened in the debates in the
French National Assembly in June on the ratification of the London Conference
decisions on Germany. The De Gaullists and the communists joined together and
attacked the decisions mainly on the ground that they would lead to German
revival. Luckily the assembly ratified the decisions. In July the Socialists in
the Assembly who for some time were in alliance with the Christian Democrats
rebelled against the cabinet and brought about the defeat of the Schumann
Cabinet. This resulted in a serious crisis and it was with very great
difficulty that Audre Marie of the Radical party could form a new ministry. But
it includes a large rightist element and there is therefore a danger of worse
opposition to it from the Socialists and the communists. This instability of
government is a serious obstacle in the way of the West European Union being
maintained at its full strength. In Italy the situation grew acute when an
attempt was made in Parliament to assassinate Togliati, the communist leader.
There was a large scale strike of labourers but fortunately it was called off
soon and the danger of unrest and possibly of civil war overcome for the time
being. Democracies have to be strengthened and unite they are to overcome the
dangers arising from international communism backed by Soviet Russia. They are
however lacking this strength and unless drastic economic reforms are carried
out in Italy, France and otter countries and the condition of labour is
improved, communistic troubles are likely to be on the increase. For the time
being these troubles have been overcome.
This does not mean that the communist world of
Soviet Russia and East Europe has no internal troubles to face. It is true that
during the last six months the economy of all this region has been closely
knitted up under the initiative of Soviet authorities who are anxious to prove
to the people of these areas that they can recover and prosper even without
participating in the Marshall Aid Plan. This is an advance in the right
direction. And the unity existing among these countries was shown in June when their
foreign ministers met at Warsaw the Polish capital, and called on the Western
powers not to proceed with true policy of disintegrating Germany but adhere to
the terms of the Potsdam agreement of 1945. But there are also certain events
which show that even among the communists there are divisions and that this may
weaken Soviet Russia in the coming months. One such division is between Marshal
Tito the head of Yugoslavia and Stalin. Tito was denounced at the last meeting
of the Comneform as having betrayed international communism. It is true that
all the charges brought about against him were answered by him when in July the
communist party of Yugoslavia met in conference. But there is no prospect of
the rift between the two being healed. The differences between them are
fundamental. Tito and his people are intensely nationalistic. They are not
prepared to follow blindly the policies dictated by the Soviet. They are a
nation of peasant proprietors who believe in private property and who are not
anxious to have collective farming. Some of them even want to be friendly to
the United States and get from America the capital goods they badly need for
their industrialisation. Above all Tito is anxious to establish under his
leadership a Balkan Federation. It is this that is resented most by Moscow.
Hence the rift. In the tussle now going on between Soviet Russia and the West
the Yugoslav situation has an importance of its own. This may induce the Soviet
to adopt a less stiff attitude. Even in Greece the communists in revolt have
been meeting with defeats and this too will have its reaction on Moscow. All
this gives some hope that the Berlin crisis may not develop immediately into
war though the situation itself is highly explosive.
In the modern age wars have been mostly
manufactured in Europe and under European initiative. Even today this is the
case. For the civil wars that are now going on in China and for the wars in
Indonesia and Indochina they have to bear a great deal of responsibility. Dutch
and French imperialism are the sources of trouble in the last two countries and
British imperialism is ultimately responsible for the ‘red’ revolt in Malaya
which has been going on for the last two months. The communists have been
making much progress in China and communism has found a favourable home in the
other countries of South East Asia. In
Indonesia, for instance, the obstinacy of the Dutch who are determined to
maintain their colonial sway and disrupt the Indonesian Republic is responsible
for the growth of communism under Soviet inspiration. French obstinacy is
similarly responsible for the growing power of communism in the Viet Nam
republic. In Malaya many communists have infiltrated from China and have been
attempting to establish a Soviet Republic there. They murdered many British and
Chinese planters and in spite of two months of warfare they have not been
suppressed. It is the impoverished condition of the Malayan, Chinese and Indian
labour in that country for which the capitalist-planters are responsible that
is at the root of the trouble. Communist parties have also formented trouble in
Burma during these two months. The danger therefore from international
communism is now world wide. Events in the last two months have made this
clear.
While the trouble over a large part of the world is
the outcome of the rift between Soviet Russia and the Western democracies
directed by the United States and while it has been made more intense by the
ideological fight between communism and the existing social order the Middle
East is troubled by the friction between the Arabs and the Jews. A truce was
brought about between them in June and it lasted till the 11th of July.
Attempts were made by the Security Council to extend the truce but they failed
in the beginning. It was only when the council passed a resolution that it
would enforce sanctions against any party unwilling to adhere to ‘Cease-fire’
order that the Arabs finally came round, and a state of truce has been
prevailing in Palestine since the last week of July although, as usual, each
party is complaining against the other of breaches of it.
Neither the Security Council nor Count Bernadotte
the mediator appointed by it has been able to bring about permanent peace
between the two parties. The situation, however, is on the whole favourable to
Jews today. The State of Israel established by them and recognised by many
governments including those of the United States and Russia has come to stay.
Palestine therefore has been partitioned. It is a fact. It has received international
status and it may even be admitted into the U.N.O. The Arabs have not been able
to obtain victory in the battlefield. There is every possibility of their
becoming reconciled to the new situation. King Abdulla has the prospect of
getting the Arab portion of Palestine. This is just what he wants. There are
two problems which may create complications. One is that of the 300,000 Arab
refugees who left their homes in Palestine in the early days of the civil war.
They are anxious to return and the Arab states want to send them back to their
homes as they are unable to maintain or absorb them. The Jews are not prepared
to take them back. On the other hand they are anxious to get more Jewish
immigrants especially the 12,000 who are in the camps of Cyprus and whom the
British are not prepared to liberate. The other problem is that relating to
Jerusalem. The Arabs want it and the Jews are equally anxious to retain it. If
war is to be averted a peaceful solution should be found by the Security
Council for these two problems. The Jews should be ready to come to same
compromise on them. They can now afford to be more conciliatory as they can
rest assured of a Sovereign State for themselves which had been their dream for
nearly two thousand years.