By Prof. Venkatarangaiya, M.A.
THE twelve-week session of the Central Assembly of
the United Nations which met at Paris on September 21st adjourned on December
11th to meet again on April 1st, 1949 at Lake Success to continue discussions
on the remaining items of the agenda which were left undisposed off at this
session. It was attended by 2000 delegates representing all the fifty-eight
member nations. It is estimated that at the meetings of the Assembly fifty
million words were spoken. The cost of the session to the various nations came
to more than two crores of rupees. Naturally the question is asked whether
anything has come out of all this tremendous effort and huge expenditure.
One has however to confess that the results have been
most disappointing. Inspite of the Assembly having sat for three months it was
not able to get through all the items on the Agenda, even though some of these
items like the future of the Italian Colonies and the treatment of Indians in
South Africa were of great urgency. On most questions which it took up for
consideration the decisions arrived at were of an inconclusive character. This
was the case with the Reports of the Atomic Energy Commission, of the Military
Staff Committee and of the Commission on Conventional Armaments. The stalemate
regarding the international control of Atomic Weapons, the strength and
composition of the Armed Forces to be made available to the Security Council by
Member Nations and the reduction of National Armaments has not been resolved,
The situation today is the same as what it was before the commencement of the
session. Certain decisions were arrived at on the question of Korea, Greece and
Palestine but they are not of any fruitful character as they were not based on
agreement between Soviet Russia on one side and the other big powers in the
other, an agreement so essential for effective world policies today. A
resolution was passed on Korea setting up a Permanent Commission to replace the
former temporary one with a mandate to work for the unification of the country
and to bring about the withdrawal of the Soviet and the American occupation
troops. But the Soviet Group opposed this resolution and there is therefore no
prospect of northern Korea which is under communist control becoming united
with Southern Korea which is under the control of a Government democratically
elected. Moreover as Russia has already treated in Northern Korea a fairly
large army consisting of Korean communists it has decided on withdrawing its
own armies in January 1949. But in the South the Government has as yet no
armies of its own and therefore it has to depend for protection and defence on
American forces. Under these circumstances the permanent commission will not be
in a position to carry out the mandate entrusted to it. As regards Greece the
Assembly has decided inspite of the opposition of the Soviet-Group to continue
the special committee previously appointed to watch the border and report on
the help given to Greek guerrillas by Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. The
failure of the Greek Government to suppress the guerrillas inspite of the large
amount of aid which it has been getting from the United States shows that there
is no prospect of the civil war coming to an end in the near future and that
the only effective solution for the Greek problem is again an understanding
between Russia and the United States which is as distant as ever. On the
subject of Palestine whose consideration was most inexcusably delayed till the
last moment although at the beginning of the session everyone felt that it
should be immediately taken up a resolution was passed setting up a three-man
committee with the United States, France and Turkey as members to try and seek
peace between the Arabs and the Jews without the Assembly indicating at all the
lines on which it should carryon its work. No reference was made to the
Bernadotte plan. The utter futility of a resolution like this is shown by the
fact that during the last few days war has become renewed between the Jews and
the Egyptians in the Negev and the Jews were not only able to occupy the whole
of it but also capture with the help of their naval troops the city of Gaza–the
seat of the Provisional Arab Palestine Government and it is now reported that
they are invading Egypt itself. It looks as if the Jews would not only be able
to consolidate the State of Israel but also extend its boundaries still
further. The same thing has to be said about the decision of the Assembly to
continue for another year the special Interim Committee, the Little Assembly as
it has come to be called for performing the useful service of making
preliminary studies and serving as the agent of the Assembly between sessions.
This was opposed by Soviet Russia last year and the same thing happened this
year also.
There are however certain other matters on which
the General Assembly deserves to be credited with having accomplished some good
work. Of these the more important ones are the Declaration of Human Rights and
the draft convention banning genocide (race murder). Debates on Human Rights
have been going on for the last two and a half years and the Declaration now
approved lays down that all men and women are born free and equal in dignity
and rights, irrespective of race, colour, sex, language or political opinion.
Its thirty-one articles cover rights of free assembly, free choice of
employment or domicile, marriage, social security and the right to rest and
holidays with pay. The rights listed are described as a common standard of
achievement for all peoples. The draft convention banning genocide defines
genocide as destroying in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group by: (1) killing members of the group; (2) causing seriously
bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (3) deliberately inflicting on
the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction
in whole or in part; (4) imposing measures intended to prevent births within
the group; and (5) forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group. By adopting the Declaration of Rights and the Convention on Genocide the
Assembly partially redeemed itself of the charge of sterility. But even here
the Soviet and the members belonging to the Soviet Group did not extend in a
full measure their cooperation to the other member States.
Inspite of these achievements there is much truth
in the observation of Mrs. Vijayalakshmi that “the present Assembly compares
very unfavourably with the two previous assemblies as regards the amount of work
got through.” Everyone felt that there was tremendous wastage of time, endless
repetition of the same set of arguments, and an artificiality of atmosphere due
to the realisation that debates and discussions led nowhere. This failure of
the Assembly to turn out work of real significance is due as everybody now
knows to the cleavage between Soviet Russia and the United States. The United
Nations Organisation was started on the assumption that the great powers who
acted together in fighting Germany and Japan would continue to act together in
solving the problems of peace. But fundamental differences have arisen between
them with the result that on almost every subject the Six States forming the
Soviet group find themselves in a minority against the forty-six States which
generally vote together under the leadership of the United States. Moreover it
was assumed that the treaties of peace with Germany and Japan should be best
left to be settled by the big powers and that the Assembly and the Security
Council could come in to maintain peace after the treaties were concluded. But
events during the last three years have taken a quite different turn. The big
powers have not been able to enter into peace treaties with Germany and Japan.
And the responsibility for it seems now to be thrown on the United Nations
Organisation. The action which through the initiative of the United States in
General Assembly was called on to take in respect of Korea is an instance of
this. But the Assembly and the Security Council are not bodies fit to settle
issues in dispute between the great powers. Herein lies the explanation for the
sterility of the United Nations Organisation. Unless and until the Great powers
realise this and try to settle among themselves without abusing the power of
Veto the questions that have now become a source of controversy between them
there does not seem to be any prospect of the United Nations Organisation
realising the aims with which it was established. Time alone can show whether
such an understanding is possible. As things stand the suspicion between the
East and the West has become deep-rooted. The latest illustration of this is
the statement made the other day by President Truman, enigmatic as it appears
to be. He observed: “Contracts are not sacred to the Soviet Government. I made
certain specified agreements at Potsdam none of which have been kept by the
Soviet Government. Certain agreements were made at Yalta, none of which have
been kept. I am exceedingly sorry for that, because the Russian people are a
great people. I am sure that if the Russian people had a voice in the
Government of Russia, these agreements would have been kept.” This shows that
President Truman is not hopeful of any friendly standing with Russia so long as
the present Government headed by Stalin and Molotov continues to be in power
and there is no chance of its being replaced by a freely elected popular
government.
The consequences of this growing disagreement
between the East and the West are now quiet plain. The idea of collective
security has to been practically abandoned. The earlier system of pacts and
alliances is once more come to the forefront. The Northern Atlantic Pact under
which the United States and Canada are to enter into an alliance with West
European powers is an instance of this. The effort to reorganise the British
Commonwealth of Nations as to reconcile republicanism with membership in it is
another instance. Necessarily under this system the race in armaments is bound
to go on at a much quicker pace. The British, suffering as they are from
shortage of man power for industrial purposes, have now reconciled themselves
to the extension of conscription to eighteen months. Atomic weapons are being
piled up in the United States. Preparations for chemical and bacteriological
war-fare are going on in countries which feel that for some time to come the
manufacture of the atom bomb is beyond their capacity. The world is now in the
same position as it was before 1914. It has learnt nothing from the two world
wars.
Will it be right however to conclude from all this
that the United Nations Organisation deserves to be scrapped? Certainly not. It
may be weak today. It might have caused much disappointment. But if mankind is
to enjoy peace and security it is only through such an organisation with some
of its technical defects removed. The fact that it is now being utilised by the
Great powers to publicly condemn each other and to carry on propaganda
indicates that it is a powerful instrument today for the shaping of world opinion.
It is better even to have an unsatisfactory and cumbrous international forum
than none at all.
The events that are now taking place in Indonesia
illustrate the value of such a forum. The Dutch have resorted to military
action against the Republic in contravention of the Renville agreement entered
into in January 1949. Republican forces have been completely defeated and Dutch
military rule has been re-established over practically the whole area. Brutal
force has succeeded for the time being. But the Indonesians are not going to
yield. They have now taken to guerrilla tactics and they may resort to
scorch-earth policy. Even some of the puppet governments set up in the course
of last year by the Dutch are in rebellion against them.
All are agreed that the responsibility for the
military action lies wholly on the Dutch. The United Nations Good Offices
Committee observes thus in its latest report: “It is the finding of the Good
Offices Committee that the facts establish that no effective notice of the
termination of the truce agreement of January 17, 1948 was given by the Dutch
Government, and that Dutch forces crossed the Status Quo line and
initiated hostile military action against the Republic while the obligations of
the truce agreement were still fully operative.” World opinion has without
exception condemned the Dutch action. The opinion expressed by Col. Hodgson of
Australia before the Security Council is typical. He said: “Tragic is the only
word which can describe the Dutch action, for the consequences may well be
incalculable, not only in the Netherlands East Indies but throughout South East
Asia, and indeed in the metropolitan territory of the Netherlands. The Dutch
action is worse even than what Hitler did to Netherlands in 1940. It affects my
country. It causes strikes, strife and turmoil. It causes the loss of material
necessary for world rehabilitation. It causes loss of commerce. It causes the
growth of extremist ideas. Repercussions may well cause a big breach in
international peace.” American opinion is also more or less of the same
character. A leading American paper stated that this action of the Dutch
involved not only the future relations between the Netherlands and the East
Indies, but also between All Asia and the West.
The Dutch action has been responsible for the
growth of a Pan-Asian feeling in the matter. Pandit Nehru gave, expression to
this when he said that the days of imperialism were over, that no imperialist
power could stay in Asia and that whatever happened India’s foreign policy
would be directed to see that no foreign power ruled over any Asiatic country.
It was on the same lines that the Prime Minister of Burma spoke and proposed
the convening of a conference of Asian powers to consider the nature of the
concerted action they should take to meet the Dutch aggression. Pakistan,
Ceylon and the Arab League Countries have also expressed themselves strongly
against the Dutch. The action taken by India, Burma, Ceylon and some other
Asian countries to ban all air and sea-traffic touching their towns and ports
indicates the growing strength of this Pan-Asian feeling.
That the Dutch should have resorted to this action
at a time when the menace of communism is growing more and more threatening is
all the more deplorable. And all observers have repeatedly pointed that
imperialism is one of the strongest causes of communism in S.E. Asia. In China
there has been no perceptible weakening of communist advance although they have
not been able as yet to occupy Nanking. A coalition cabinet has been formed to
run the nationalist government but it is not yet known how much strength it
will be able to gather. In South China some of the Governors of Provinces and
War-lords have taken the initiative to organise some kind of federation to
resist the spread of communism to the South. This might have been responsible
for the talk that Chiang and his new cabinet are anxious to continue the civil
war not so much to obtain a complete victory–which under the circumstances is
an impossibility but to obtain an honourable peace with the “Reds.” Otherwise
if communists triumph in the North and if the War-lords consolidate their
position in the South Chiang will be nowhere.
The situation in China may also affect the
organisation of the U.N. Security Council. China was admitted as a permanent
member of the Council in 1946 at a time when she was a great power. But now
things are entirely different. Even if the right of China to be represented is
not questioned there is the possibility of Russia recognising the communist
government as the real government of China and calling on the Security Council
to have China represented by a nominee of that Government. An issue like this
is sure to complicate the situation.
There is also the possibility that as time passes
differences may also arise between France on one side and Britain and America
on the other in regard to various matters, relating to Germany. It is true that
so far the three powers have been more or less in agreement on several
questions affecting that country. But there are also certain fundamental
differences. France is afraid of a German military and industrial recovery,
while the British and the Americans are not so much alarmed at it as they think
that a revived Germany might be a source of strength to them in their war
against communist Russia. These differences took a formidable shape recently in
connection with the discussions on the international control of the Ruhr
industries. It is now stated that the British and the Americans had to some
extent to yield to the French in the matter of conferring a wider authority on
the International Body to be set up for regulating the production and
distribution of the output of the Ruhr mines and industries. But this will not
lead to a complete understanding among the three powers. A primary factor in
the situation will be the attitude of the Germans themselves towards these
schemes relating to their economic future. The fact that in the recent
elections of the Western Sector of Berlin the non-communists gained a majority
is no indication that all Germans are satisfied with the treatment they are
having at the hands of the Western powers. They are sure to feel that they
should not toil only for the sake of these powers. The national feeling that is
now dormant is sure to come up as an active force in the near future. It is
then that the attitude of the Western powers will have to be tested.
This
survey shows that there are at present many uncertain factors in the world
situation–in China, South East Asia, the Middle East and Western Europe, that
mankind is utterly in the dark as to what is going on behind the iron curtain
in Central and Eastern Europe and that everything is in a state of flux in
Western Europe; and all this makes it impossible to say exactly in what direction
events will move. It appears as if there is a considerable amount of truth in
the old saying that there is an unknown and unknowable destiny shaping the
fortunes of men and of mankind.