By Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya, M.A.
THE crisis through which China is passing today is
a crisis for the whole world. It is only when it is looked at in this light
that it is possible to understand its true significance. The problem that is
being settled there is the problem whether communism should or should not
triumph. The events of the last one month indicate that unless some thing
extraordinary happens the communists will march in triumphant victory into
northern and even central China and that if in course of time they consolidate
their position in these areas it will not be a difficult task for them to
conquer the south and establish a communist regime over the whole country–a
country occupied by four hundred millions of people known for their industry
and a country having vast natural resources still untapped. With communism
triumphant in later portions of China it will not be surprising if it results
in communistic victories in many other countries of Eastern and South Eastern Asia
where it has been carrying on a fight for some time.
The recent triumph of the communists of China was
due to their occupation of the capital of Manchuria which meant the complete
occupation of this province with all its industries and agricultural resources.
This was followed by their entry into northern China in large numbers and they
are now converging on Nanking the nationalist capital. From the military as
well as the political stand point Chiang Kai Shaik is now in a weak position
and he is likely to be compelled to evacuate his capital and have his
headquarters in Canton or some other place in the South. The fall of Nanking is
sure to cause demoralisation in the ranks of the supporters of the nationalist
government and it will be impossible for Chiang’s forces to regain the lost
prestige. More than the material losses it is this moral debacle that makes the
situation hopeless for Chiang.
The peculiarity of his position today is that very
few among the Chinese and very few among the people outside China show any
sympathy towards him. He is now one of those ‘great’ men who had unprecedented
opportunities of creating a social order based on justice and equity but did
very little to avail himself of such opportunities and tolerated the
reactionary and corrupt policies among his leading followers. It is this more
than anything else that is responsible for his unenviable position at present.
There was a time when the whole nation rallied around him as the man who
inherited the tradition of Sun-yat-sen the Father of the Chinese Nation and as
the saviour of the country’s freedom and liberties from the Japanese menace. In
those days even the communists were prepared to fight by his side in the cause
of liberty. But today everything has changed. The communists have been fighting
against him. The moderates, the democrats and the liberals have practically
deserted him while the masses of people seem to prefer the tyranny of the
communists to the systematic pillage to which they were subjected by his army
and by the administrative officials that were entrusted with the routine dunes
of government.
Chiang had not been able to maintain discipline in
the ranks of the army or of the civil service. Military commanders have been
taking the law into their hands. There are cases of generals disobeying his
orders, fighting with their own colleagues instead of with the communists and
even deserting to the communists. Many among the rank and file of the army have
become tired of this long period of war and in several cases far away from
their homes. They have become anxious to lay down their arms. Mutiny and
desertion have become frequent and very little has been done of late to revive
the decaying morale. In addition to this the soldiers have been literally
living on the villagers and looting and pillage have not been uncommon. It is
this change in the temper and character of the army that is to a great extent
responsible for Chiang’s defeat.
Civil administration has been equally bad.
Office-holders have become terribly corrupt. State monopolies have been
utilised not to cheapen the supplies of commodities or increase them but to
enrich the administrators. The burden of taxation has grown heavy and most of
the revenues have been spent on the army and civil service. Very little did the
people get from government in the shape of social services. To add to all this
there was unprecedented inflation and the steps taken to arrest it have not
been a success. Above all the new era in agriculture which would secure to the
peasant the fruits of his labour remained only in the stage of expectation and
all prospects of its realisation postponed till domesday. The masses were
overtaken by the feeling that there was no hope whatever under Chiang’s regime
of a new democratic order of society being established. Along with the
demoralisation in the ranks of the army and of the generals it is this feeling
among the people that has made it difficult for Chiang to retain his hold over
large parts of the country. In a civil war especially the loss of popular
confidence and support is an irreparable loss.
All along Chiang has been getting some help from
the United States which was interested in arresting the growth of communism in
this part of the world. But the help was not substantial. In addition to this
the government of the United States did not take timely measures to tell Chaing
that unless his administration became honest and unless attention was paid to
the promotion of the economic and social welfare of the masses further help
would not be forthcoming.
It is a tragic feature of the intervention of the
United States in the affairs of the other countries today that intentionally or
unintentionally she has been sponsoring the cause not of real democracy but of
reactionarism. This has been the case in Greece. It is the case in many of the
countries of the Middle East and it is also the case in China. In all these
countries power is in the hands of the richer and the feudal classes. There is
nothing like real democratic government. And in spite of the millions of
dollars that the United States has been spending she has not been able to
attract the loyalty and gratitude of the masses because of her bolstering up
the reactionaries. For a democracy with faith in liberty and equality to adopt
a policy like this is most fatal that is just what she has been doing. If
instead of this she had striven hard and directly to place in power in these
countries true democrats she could have maintained the morale of the people and
prevented the growth of totalitarian communism.
It is because of this that President Truman is now
in a dilemma. The anti-Communist policy which his government has been pursuing
requires that he should support Chiang against Chinese communists. But there is
also the suspicion and doubt that Chiang may not be in a position to use
effectively and profitably any military help that may be extended to him. To
remain indifferent to the course of events in China would be to see the
extension of communism over the whole of the Far East. But to arrest its growth
would mean not merely the sending of substantial military help to China but
also the creation in that country of a true democratic government–which perhaps
is now beyond the bounds of possibility.
It is this that makes the crisis in China a crisis
for the whole world. It will decide the future of the relations between the
United States and Soviet Russia.
There is a suggestion that the United States should
now strive to bring about a coalition government in China composed of
communists and non-communists belonging to the progressive parties. Such a move
may be welcomed by the communists themselves for the reason that at present
though they may defeat Chiang they do not possess the resources in men and
materials required to set up a sound system of administration. To consolidate
their conquests, to give to the people peace, security, and order and to carry
out the needed agrarian and other economic reforms time is required and they
may therefore be disposed to think that a coalition with the other left wing
groups in the country will be justified on grounds of prudence and expediency.
But from the American point of view a course like this is full of risks. It may
result–as it did in several other countries–in the non-communists being driven
out of the coalition in course of time and in a pure communist government being
established in the end. This is a serious risk no doubt but the alternative to
this is to leave China to chaos and confusion for a long period. The defeat of
Chiang will not mean orderly communist rule.
Another factor in President Truman’s dilemma is
what attitude the communists in China are likely to adopt in their dealings
with the great powers. If they align themselves with Soviet Russia as
communists in so many other countries have done it will upset the balance as
between Soviet Russia and the United States and nullify to a great extent the
effects of the policy of economic–and political penetration that the United
States has been pursuing in the Far and Middle East as well as in Western
Europe. With the whole of China allied to Russia the hope of the United States
arresting the progress of Soviet power in Western Europe and the Middle East
will considerably recede to the background. And she may begin to think that the
only way in which we could accomplish her aim is to fight Russia even before
she consolidates her strength. A third world war may then be precipitated.
It looks as if communism will undoubtedly advance
into Indonesia, Indo-China, Siam and Burma if time is given to Soviet Russia to
consolidate her alliance with communism in China. For in the first two of these
countries communist parties are fighting not a class war but a nationalist war
to start with. They are aiming at the overthrow of the Dutch and the French imperialisms
which are backed up by the United States. Even today the Dutch, for instance,
have not realised that if they continue to oppose the legitimate demands of the
Republic in Indonesia they will have to fight not merely the republicans but
the communists. They have recently sent a cabinet mission to carryon fresh
negotiations with the Republic but such negotiations can never yield fruitful
results until the Republican authorities are satisfied that the Dutch will not
go back on the terms of the Renville Agreement. The republicans have been
repeatedly complaining against the Dutch on this score but so far their
complaints have proved futile. The situation in Indo-China is equally bad. If
therefore the United States is really anxious to arrest the spread of communism
in these countries she must adopt a really progressive policy, cease helping
imperialism and colonial economy and secure for these countries at least that
kind of independence which she gave to the Philippines. Otherwise the alliance
between Chinese communists and the communists in these countries will become
closer and backed by Soviet propaganda and financial help all South East Asia
including Burma and Siam will become communist. And then the communist menace
will become real in India.
The remedy therefore lies in the United States
adopting a truly democratic and anti-imperealist policy in the countries of
South-East Asia, and in bringing a truly democratic government into existence
in Southern China. This is the least that she should do and this should be done
immediately.
It is in this context that the special address
given by India’s Prime Minister Pandit Nehru to the General Assembly of the
United Nations pointing out the role of Asia in the present international
set-up is of great significance. He observed: “You will not solve your problems
by thinking that the problems of the world are mainly European. There are vast
tracts in Asia which may not in the past have taken much part in world affairs
but they are awake. Their people are moving and they have no intention whatever
of being ignored or passed by. Today, Asia counts in world affairs. Tomorrow,
it will count much more”.
A really democratic and socialist policy has to be
pursued by the United States in the countries of the Far East and the Middle
East especially in view of the fact that the situation in Germany and Western
Europe is deteriorating instead of improving from day to day. The attempts made
in November by the President of the United Nations to solve the Berlin crisis
have not proved fruitful. Neither party is prepared to yield to the other in
regard to the order of priority in which the blockade, the currency question
and the general problem of German settlement have to be solved. The delay in
this respect has also revealed some acute differences between the United States
on one side and England and France on the other. Similarly November has seen
the triumph of the Gaullists in French elections to the upper chamber and the
declaration by De Gaulle that the whole idea of the West European Union and the
Atlantic pact should undergo revision. Differences have also risen between
France on one side and England and the United States on the other regarding the
ownership, control and distribution of the industrial and mineral resources of
the Ruhr. All this may affect the actual working of the European Recovery
Programme. With such obstacles in the way of complete unity among the Western
democracies it becomes all the more necessary and urgent for the United States
to adopt a really anti-imperialist and democratic policy in South East Asia.
We are witnessing the birth of a new world. Countries great and small are trying in their own way to determine the form and substance of this world. It is this that gives interest and significance to the course of international affairs.