BY PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA, M.A.
It is now being proclaimed from the house-tops that
what the world really needs is peace. In spite of the phenomenal advance in
scientific knowledge and the ever-growing control of mass over the hidden
forces of nature, humanity today is worse-fed, worse clothed and worse-housed
than at any other period of history. As Sir John Boyd-Orr recently reported,
there is an impending world food shortage due to rising population and wasting
the forces of production. We are in a situation where the best and the only
proper and legitimate course is to utilise all available resources for
producing the things which give life to the people at large. Unfortunately,
however, the power-mad politicians–the Stalins and the Trumans who are at the
helm of affairs and who guide the destinies of mankind–are not in a mood to
divert the world’s resources into productive channels. They are, on the other
hand, bent on carrying on the Napoleonic tradition, the tradition of imperial
conquests in the name of liberty, equality, fraternity, and that much-abused
term democracy. What we are witnessing today is a repetition of what happened
in Europe in the years following the French Revolution. The Communist dictator Stalin
and the Capitalist dictator Truman do not want to leave the world alone. They
are doing just what the revolutionary politicians and Napoleon on one side, and
the monarchical and feudal regimes on the other, did in the period between 1789
and 1815.
This is the only conclusion that has to be drawn
from the way in which the democratic world of Western Europe and the
capitalistic world of America reacted to the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia,
carried out of course in the name of the democratic freedom of the working
classes under the orders of Stalin. It is now Stalin’s policy to provide for
the security of his country–and he is interested only in that and not in world
security– by creating as large a number of satellite States around it as
possible, so that, in any future war in which he has to fight, these States;
might become the battle-grounds and his country be safe and at a long distance
from the actual scene of battle, free from the devastation that might be caused
by the invading forces. It used to be said of the British Government of India
that, in the campaigns in which they employed the Indian troops, they made it a
point to keep these troops in front of the battle-line and the British
regiments behind, so that the whole brunt of the battle was borne by the former
while the fruits of victory were enjoyed by the British soldiers. This is just
what Stalin is doing in Europe. As a result of the Second World War which he,
along with the other Allies, proclaimed as being fought to get the world rid of
imperialism, Soviet Russia has become in Europe the mistress of an empire the
like of which was never seen before. The Baltic States of Latvia, Esthonia, and
Lithuania, and Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Bulgaria,
Romania, and Eastern Germany have all become her dependencies. And with the
conclusion of the military pact with Finland in April, Stalin has been able to
bring under his control even this country. Of course what Stalin has been doing
in Europe and elsewhere is also what Truman is doing in many parts of the
world. He is anxious that France, the Netherlands, Italy, and Greece should
become the battle-grounds so that America might be safe from Russian attack.
One outcome of the Communist coup in
Czechoslovakia, and of the pressure brought by Soviet Russia on Finland, was
the conclusion of a fifty-year treaty of economic cooperation and military aid
by Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, and Luxemburg. Responsible spokesmen of
these countries praised it on the ground that it was designed to fortify and
preserve the principles of democracy, personal freedom, and political liberty,
the gulf of law and constitutional government. These are the characteristics of
West-European culture, as distinguished from that of Russia and the rest of
Eastern Europe. The Treaty promises that, if an armed attack is made in Europe
on anyone of the parties to the Treaty, the others will afford to it all
military and other aid. It is nothing but a military pact of the traditional
type, directed this time against Russian expansionism, although, in his
announcement of the news of the pact to the House of Commons, Prime Minister
Attlee gave to it a very high spiritual significance. In accordance with the
military articles of the Treaty, the Defence Ministers of the five States met
subsequently in a conference and set up a Permanent Military Committee to work
out all the details. The defence stems of the five States are being converted
into a joint defence system–not amalgamated but closely coordinated. And this
whole machinery of alliance, which the Soviet regards as a disturbing factor,
is considered by the Governments of the five countries as a stabilizing factor
in the disturbed conditions of present-day Europe.
While the Brussels discussions were going on, there
was also a conference of the foreign ministers of the sixteen nations of Europe
who had already agreed to participate in the (Marshall Aid) European Recovery
Programme. A sort of permanent “economic general staff” was set up to supervise
the details. More important than this was the suggestion made at the conference
that the programme should be extended to Western Germany and even to Spain. The
first suggestion was accepted.
The inclusion of Western Germany in the programme
is a turning event in the contemporary history of Europe and of the world. This
amounts to a definite reversal of the policy originally agreed upon by the
Allied Powers, that German industry should be kept for years at a very low
level, so that Germans might not at any time have at their disposal those
industrial resources which in the past enabled them to become aggressive and
plunge the world into two destructive wars. It is now felt by the British, the
Americans, and even the French, that without the development of the resources
of Western Germany, and especially of the Ruhr which is its industrial heart,
there can be no European recovery at all. The output of coal, iron, and steel
in the Ruhr was responsible for the prosperity of most countries in Western
Europe in the past, and the people of these countries have now realised that
they cannot recover, even with the aid extended by America, unless once more
they secure adequate supplies of these commodities from Germany. They have now
come to the conclusion that an impoverished Germany would mean an impoverished
Europe.
But here was a real dilemma. An industrialised
Germany might once more become a great military power. The problem therefore
was how to develop Germany’s economic resources without her becoming a military
power again. This formed the subject of secret talks that were held in London
in the last week of February, in the early days of March, and in April again at
a conference of the members of the Western European Union and the United
States. The solution put forward was the establishment of international control
over the development of the Ruhr resources, This gives a hand to France and her
neighbours in determining the extent and direction of German economic
development. To present the growth of German political power, it was suggested
that Germany should in future have only a loose form of federal government
instead of her becoming a centralised State as under Hitler, capable of
directing the military and foreign policy of the country. There was, however,
no agreement on this issue, specially because of the French opposition to any
kind of central government and administration. So far as the inclusion of
Western Germany in the European Recovery Programme is concerned, there were no
differences of opinion. The result was that when the experts of the sixteen
Marshall Aid Nations met again in the middle of April, Western Germany was also
represented at the conference, and she became a signatory to the Charter which
created a permanent organisation to administer the Marshall Aid.
The attempt to include Spain in the European
Recovery Programme raises issues of a highly controversial character. Franco,
the dictator of Spain, is a lineal successor of Hitler and Musolini. His
Fascism has destroyed the liberties of the Spanish people. It was on this Score
that Spain was not admitted into the United Nations or into any of the other
international bodies organised under its auspices. That the ‘democratic’
nations of Europe and America should be thinking of extending Marshall Aid to
this country indicates how, in the pursuit of the game of power-politics,
principles have no influence whatever. The American House of representatives
approved of the inclusion of Spain in the programme, though at the subsequent
joint conference of the representatives of two Houses of Congress there was a
vote against this inclusion. It was in these discussions that a Republican
Representative remarked that Spain was the greatest bulwark against Communism
in Europe, and as such she should receive all possible American aid. No wonder
that proceedings like these provoked several left-wing observers to remark that
America is interested not so much in aiding the democracies of Europe as in
destroying Communism, and that, in exchange for strategic bases in a war
against Russia, she is prepared to sacrifice all her principles.
The net outcome, however, of the events in Western
Europe in March and April was the formation of the West-European Military Union
under the Brussels Treaty, and the coming into closer co-operation of the
sixteen Marshall Aid nations for economic purposes. In these days it is
impossible to divide economics from politics or to think of any group of
countries pursuing economic policies without providing for security. It is
because of this that there is already a move that, along with economic aid, the
United States should provide to these sixteen countries any military aid they
might be in need of.
In this ‘cold war’ now going on between Russia and
America, the centre of interest shifted to Italy in March and Apri1. This was
because of the General Elections due to be held there on April 18. The contest
between the Communists and their allies, the majority Socialists, on one side,
and the Christian Democrats on the other, was very acute. The Communists put
forth all their best efforts to dislodge the Christian Democrats who were the
party carrying on the government of the country. The elections however ceased
to be a purely domestic affair. The Big Powers took active interest in them. To
Russia, a Communist victory was naturally welcome. It meant the inclusion of
Italy in the Soviet sphere of influence, and it would also ensure the triumph
of the Communist party at the next general election in France, and the
extension of Communism to the Atlantic. The British and the Americans are
equally anxious to see the triumph of the Christian Democrats. Italy occupies a
strategic position in the Mediterranean, and American expansionism into Greece
and Turkey and her hold over the middle East, vital to her from the point of
view of her oil supplies and her general strategy, depends on Italy remaining
in her circle of allies and participating in the Marshall Plan.
In this struggle for securing in Italy a government
favourable to themselves, both the rival groups among the Big Powers took
recourse to tactics which might be appropriately designated as bribery on a
national scale. Russia promised to give up her share of Italian separation and
also gave a effort of written undertaking that at the meeting of the Council of
Foreign misters she would support the Italian claim for the trusteeship of the
colonies in Africa. In their turn Britain, France, and the United States
proposed that the seaport of Trieste, which was in possession of Italy before
Second World War and which was taken away from her in the peace treaty of 1947
should be restored to her. In addition to this, the United States threatened
that she would not extend her aid to Italy–an aid without which Italian
economic recovery was an impossibility–in case the Italian electorate voted for
the Communists in large numbers. American war-ships were also seen in Italian
waters. So great was the importance that the American attached to these
elections that General Eisenhower, who knew at first hand all about Europe,
observed:
“If this oldest corridor between the East and the
West were walled up, the effects would be instant and catastrophic. Blocked to
Western countries would be the direct air and sea-routes to our friends at the
strategic heart of the Eastern Hemisphere. International commerce, the economic
foundations of stable peace, would be disrupted. War, in such a case, would be
close to us.”
The elections were held on April 18. The Christian
Democrats were returned in absolute majority, and the danger of a Communist
government being established in that country was averted. The Iron curtain
remained where it was before the elections, and now Italy continues to be a
member of the comity of West-European nations. This was a triumph for American
policy and meant a defeat of Soviet Russia. During the last three years,
controversies went on as to how far elections in the countries of Eastern
Europe, which are in the Soviet sphere of influence, were really free. The same
question may be asked with reference to these Italian elections. Whether free
or unfree, the outcome, for the time being at least, is that Italy has a
non-Communist Government. This has already produced a chastened effect on
Soviet Russia. The willingness of Molotov to enter into discussions with the
United States on the subject of the relations between the two countries is to
some extent attributed to Soviet failure in the Italian elections.
Throughout March and April, the Government of the
United States showed a distinct tendency to strengthening the defence forces of
the country, in the hope that a firm policy in this respect would bring down
Soviet Russia and put a stop to her aggressive and expansionist policy. The day
on which the Brussels Pact was signed in Europe was also the day when President
Truman declared, in his message to Congress, that Russia not only refused to
cooperate in the establishment of a just and honourable peace, but, even worse,
she persistently obstructed the work of the United Nations by constant abuse of
the Veto. He recommended that conscription and universal military training
should be immediately introduced into the United States, and in defence of it
he stated: “Aggressors in the past, relying on an apparent lack of military
force, have universally precipitated war,” and, if war is now to be prevented,
it can only be done by increasing the military strength of the United States to
the furthest extent possible. Throughout the whole of April, this was the
dominating note of all his speeches and addresses and in the messages he sent
to Congress. It was also the spirit that animated the statements made by his
Defence Secretary and several other spokesmen of his Government, in the
evidence they gave before the committees of Congress, for obtaining
unprecedented sums of money for expenditure on the military, naval, and air
defences of the country. It was as a part of this policy that steps were taken
to strengthen the bases in Alaska and in the Aleutian islands. Negotiations
were set afloat to obtain bases in Spain and in Spanish Moroeco and in Malta.
More military equipment was sent to Turkey. And it was decided to give
substantial military aid to China. Military aid was also offered to the
countries of Western Europe as a part of the Recovery Programme. The Programme
itself received the sanction of Congress at the beginning of April, and
administrators were appointed to proceed to Europe and arrange for the regular
dispatch to the different countries the commodities they were in need of.
Defence talks were opened with Canada. Decisions were also taken in regard to
the maintaining of Japan’s industry at a high level so that she might become a
sort of American arsenal in the Far-East. It was clear to the whole world how
strong was the militarist trend in the United States.
It is no wonder that in this tense atmosphere of
the widening cleavage between Soviet Russia and the United States, the United
Nations Organisation has lost much of its prestige. This is one of the
tragedies of the post-war world, and it has come to the clearest gaze in the
happenings in Palestine where a grim battle is going on between the Jews and
the Arabs–a battle which is being fought by the Jews to uphold the scheme of
partition decided upon by the General Assembly of the United Nations but which
the United Nations is not in a mood to put into effect. This is, however, a
long story and it has to be reserved for a later occasion.