INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

By Prof. M. Venkatarangaiya, M.A.

THE long-expected conference of Dominion Prime Ministers has met and the constitutional issue for the settlement of which it was assumed to have been called has been settled to the satisfaction of all and that in a spirit of complete harmony and friendliness. The question that it had to decide was whether a Republic could become and remain a member of the Commonwealth. This arose in consequence of the determination of India to become a Republic. All along it was only the Dominions who accepted the Crown as the common constitutional link that were admitted to the membership of the Commonwealth. This was emphasized in the Balfour Declaration of 1926 which has all these years formed the basis of Dominion Status. If India had no desire to continue to be actively associated with Britain and with the other members of the Commonwealth the question would not have arisen at all. As a Republic she will have to go outside the Commonwealth. But the Indian National Congress as well as the front rank leaders of the country expressed themselves in favour of intimate association with the Commonwealth being continued. Britain as well as the other members were also equally anxious for the continuance of the association. Hence arose the constitutional issue. Now it has been settled that there is no inconsistency between India becoming a Republic and her continuing as a full and equal member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

What does this involve? As a Republic India will be completely sovereign and independent. The President of the Republic will exercise the functions hitherto performed by the King and the latter will not have any constitutional functions so far as India is concerned. There is therefore no question of allegiance to him. But membership of the Commonwealth means that India along with others recognises the Crown as the symbol of free association of its (Commonwealths) independent member-nations and as such the Head of the Commonwealth. In practice this will mean nothing although it satisfies the sentiment of those members of the Commonwealth who are traditionally attached to the Crown. India will as a member continue to enjoy full imperial preference in trade matters; Indian citizens will within one Commonwealth continue to have all the rights they now enjoy. The precedent set by India may be followed by South Africa where also there is a strong party in favour of a republican type of government. There is a chance of Eire becoming associated with the Commonwealth and Burma also may think on these lines.

It is necessary however to understand why it is that India wants to maintain her association with the Commonwealth and why the other members are also anxious to keep her in such association. It is a matter of mutual advantage in the present world context. Although India has become fully sovereign and independent she does not as yet possess all the resources necessary to protect her against any possible threat from outside. She is weak in respect of naval and air forces. Even in regard to her armies she has to depend on others for equipment and perhaps also for technical help. It would therefore be of advantage to her to have some kind of assurance that she would get all the help needed in these directions from the Commonwealth. To the other members of the Commonwealth India’s association is of great advantage. It is due in the main to the strategic position she occupies. Without her help it would be an impossibility for Britain to maintain her connection with Australia and New Zealand and a friendly India also strengthens Britain’s position in the Middle East. There is also a second and a more immediate consideration. It is the growing menace of international communism. Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth are determined to fight it and in this they have already ranged themselves on the side of the United States. India today is also interested in fighting it. The spread of the communist dictatorship into a large part of China, the disturbance which communism is causing in Indo-China, Burma and Malaya and the danger of communist outbreaks within India itself–all these are influencing the policy of the Indian leaders today. It is therefore a matter of common interest to India and to the other members of the Commonwealth that they should all unite and pool their resources so that they might protect themselves against communist outbreaks. Although India’s long association with Britain and her determination to adhere to the ideals of democracy and individual freedom as opposed to totalitarianism have influenced her to a great extent in her desire, to remain in the Commonwealth one should not lose sight of the fact that more than these ideologies and historical factors it is the concrete need for common defence against common danger that is at the basis of the association.

Events in China have had their own influence in this connection. The earlier idea that China would become a strong and stable democracy has now lost much of its force. The United States, Britain and other democratic powers have naturally turned to India. They wish to see her strong and stable so that she might arrest the further growth of communism. A steadying factor is necessary in Asia; and India they consider is the only country that is best fitted to occupy such a place. There are indications to show that the United States is now prepared to extend her economic aid to India and that U.S. capital might be invested there in larger quantities. This is also the real significance of the announcement recently made by Pandit Nehru giving to the investors of Foreign Capital all the assurances they needed in the matter of dividends, foreign exchange facilities, and adequate compensation if at any time in future the Government of India embarks on a policy of nationalisation.

While membership of the Commonwealth brings a number of advantages it should not be forgotten that it also creates new and additional responsibilities. Although in theory India as a sovereign state will be free to pursue an independent foreign policy she may not be able to pursue such a course at all times having regard to the reaction which it will produce on the other members of the Commonwealth. It may be necessary for her to be less dogmatic in her opposition for instance to the “white” Australian policy. There may be many other matters on which she may have to be more compromising. But on the whole she stands to gain considerably by the continuance of association with the Commonwealth and there will be no difficulty whatever in Pandit Nehru’s policy being approved by the Constituent Assembly.

The decision arrived at in the conference of Dominion Prime Ministers is also significant in its relation to the present day world-set up in which Soviet Russia and the United States are ranged on opposite sides. The spiritual and moral sympathies of the commonwealth of nations are on the whole towards the United States. Two of the important members of the Commonwealth–Britain and Canada–are also parties to the Atlantic Pact of which the United States is the leading member. The continued unity of the Commonwealth is sure to bring satisfaction to all the parties to the Pact and give them the hope that its resources will be at their disposal when the need arises.

The strengthening of the Atlantic Pact and the consolidation of the hold over Western Europe are now the principal objectives of the United States foreign policy so far as the European world is concerned. Two important steps were taken in the furtherance of these objectives during the month of April. One is the announcement that the United States would ship to the European continent arms worth 1,130,000,000 dollars under the proposed military aid programme and that the weapons so sent would prevent any successful Russian sweep over the continent. This has given confidence to the leading military strategists that Western Europe would now be in a position to withstand any invasion by Russia. The second step is the practical completion of the process of consolidating Western Germany into a single federal State. This was being worked upon for a number of months. Various obstacles however stood in its way and they have been now overcome. From the point of view of the parties to the Atlantic Pact the situation is now bright.

Everyone has recognized that for the successful execution of the European Recovery Programme and for the strengthening of the defences of Western Europe full use should be made of the economic and industrial resources of Germany. But an apprehension was entertamed mostly by the French who within a generation were twice attacked by the Germans that the industrial revival of Germany would ultimately result in her militarisation and her coming once more a threat to French independence. Naturally the French have been opposing all plans first to amalgamate the three zones of occupation into a single State and second to the industrial development of such state and the creation of a central government for it. But all these steps were absolutely essential for the recovery of Europe.

The fears of the French have been greatly allayed by recent happenings. The Atlantic Pact and the United States Arms programme have given them the assurance that in case of any attack in future America will immediately come to their aid. They have therefore given up their misgivings and agreed to have the three occupation zones united into a single State. The British and the Americans have also felt that without the active and willing co-operation of the Germans themselves an increase in the industrial output of Germany would be an impossibility and that such co-operation would not be forthcoming unless they were given a substantial share in the government of the country. It was with this view that arrangements were made ten months ago for the meeting of a German representative council at Bonn to draft a constitution for a self-governing West German State. But there also certain difficulties arose as the French were afraid that such a State would produce in course of time a second Hitler. These fears also have now been dispelled and it is now believed that everything is ready for the creation and working of a West German State within the next few months.

The three allied powers have now enacted what is called the German Occupation Statute. This gives to the new West German State maximum legislative, executive and judicial powers consistent with the need to prevent any German military aggression in future. For this purpose the occupation powers retain control over nine functions including foreign affairs, disarmament, Ruhr administration, allied security, foreign trade etc. They also reserve the right to veto any German legislation which might be deemed as a “grave threat to the basic purpose of occupation.” They further reserve the right to resume in whole or in part the exercise of full authority if they consider that to do so is essential to security or to preserve the democratic government in Germany or in pursuance of the international obligations of their governments. They also promise to review after one year and within eighteen months the provisions of the statute “with a view to extending the jurisdiction of German authorities in the legislative, executive, and judicial fields.” The occupation statute thus introduces into Germany a system of dyarchy with which we in India are familiar. Some powers are transferred to the Germans and some are reserved by the occupation authorities. It is true that the Germans will not be reconciled completely to such a state of affairs but political realism requires that it will be sheer madness on their part to expect that complete sovereignty would be restored to them so soon after the world war. The advantage of the statute is that the period of suspense is over; the Germans know exactly where they are; and the allies need no longer concern themselves with minute details of administration but confine themselves to high questions of policy.

As important as this is the prospect of the Council at Bonn completing its task of framing a constitution for the West German State. This work has not been proceeding satisfactorily for more than one reason. There is an underlying feeling among the representatives assembled at the Council that no purpose would be served by their drafting a constitution for a divided Germany and that no such task should be undertaken until the Russian Zone of Eastern Germany together with the city of Berlin is incorporated with Western Germany. They are afraid that framing a constitution now would perpetuate the division of the country. They have therefore not been very enthusiastic in carrying out their work. In the second place acute differences of opinion have arisen in regard to the distribution of powers between the centre and the units in the proposed federal state of Western Germany. The Christian democrats are for a weak centre and for large powers being conferred on the units. The Social democrats however are for a strong centre. The occupation powers have been interfering with the work of constitution making. They have been issuing directions as to what the council should do and in many matters they took up the side of the Christian democrats. This was resented and it appeared at one time that the Germans might non-cooperate and refuse to frame a constitution as dictated by the occupation powers. Fortunately all these differences and misunderstandings have now come to an end. The occupation powers have promised not to interfere. The Social democrats are having an easier task and a federal constitution with real power granted to the centre is being framed. The Constitution also is flexible in the sense that it makes it easy for Berlin and Eastern Germany to become parties to it whenever the situation becomes favourable to them. The establishment therefore of a West German State has now become an unaccomplished fact. And forty-five million Germans will have the satisfaction that in certain spheres of life they have once more become their own masters.

It is events like these that are responsible for the anxiety now displayed by Soviet Russia to lift the Berlin Blockade, to revive the foreign ministers conference and resume talks on German peace settlement. This is no doubt a climb-down for Russia but she has now realised that the cold war and the war of nerves have not been of much advantage to her and that they have created unnecessary difficulties. The air-lift by which the British and the Americans brought all essential supplies to Berlin has been a phenomenal success. The counter-measures which they adopted to blockade the Russian part of Berlin have also been a success and resulted in much dislocation and loss to the Russians and to the Germans in the East. It is not also to the liking of Russia that the Western powers should succeed in unifying all West Germany and create a self-governing state there. Contrast is now being drawn by the Germans between the fair conditions prevailing in the Western section and the bad conditions in the Russian Zone and many are leaving the latter and taking refuge in the former. All this has affected the position of Soviet Russia and they are now trying to delay the formation of the West German State by proposing to lift the Berlin blockade and resume discussions on the future of Germany. It is not known what the outcome of the preliminary talks now going on will be. One thing however is certain. The tactics pursued by Russia for a year have failed and they will have to revise their tactics now. The Atlantic Pact, the Occupation Statute and the drafting of the constitution of West Germany are all of great significance in bringing about this change in Soviet tactics. Whether they will modify their general international policy is still uncertain. One should not forget the emphasis that the Soviet lays on the difference between the ultimate aim and policy–which are unalterable–the strategy required to pursue them and the everchanging tactics in executing the strategy.

There is a large amount of agreement on matters of foreign policy between the Labour Government in England and the Conservative opposition. Mr. Bevin has been receiving more praise from the conservatives than from the back-benchers in his own party and any change in the party strength in the House of Commons that the general elections due a year hence might bring about may not result in much of a change in foreign policy–in the Atlantic Pact or in the policy towards Germany or Russia or China. Moreover Britain has now become so intimately allied to the United States that no party will be in a position to bring about fundamental changes in her foreign policy independently of the United States. All the same, people in Britain are now concerning themselves with the prospects of the next general election. Interest in this has become greater owing to certain happenings in April. One was the budget of Sir Stafford Cripps which appealed more to the conservatives than to labour left-wing. The other is the huge loss sustained by the labour party in the London County Council Elections where for a number of years they were commanding a majority. The third is the publication of the Labour Party Programme which will be executed if it comes again into office. This programme was prepared by the executive of the labour party and it would come up for discussion at the next party conference. It reveals how after five years of socialistic experiment the executive is not for rushing through it. A study of this programme will serve a highly useful purpose in India where there are parties which on pure abstract and theoretical grounds are bent on immediate nationalisation. In Britain all labour is not socialist and is not keen on nationalisation. There are sections of voters who take an independent view of these matters and any election programme will have to make an effective appeal to them. This is what is prominent in the new programme of the British Labour Party Executive.

It proposes to extend nationalisation to Industrial assurance, the cement industry, sugar refining and manufacturing, the wholesale meat trade and slaughter houses, cold storage, water supply and all suitable minerals. It undertakes in general to socialize monopoly industries. To promote efficiency it advocates competitive public enterprise alongside of private enterprise and not in substitution for it. In agriculture it seeks to encourage producers’ co-operatives. It lays emphasis on increased production involving planning and effective partnership between government and industry. These are some of the features of its economic programme. It is another illustration of the Britishers’ temperamental unwillingness to be carried away by slogans and of their sense of realism.

While conditions in Europe show a tendency towards stabilisation and the weakening of the disruptive forces conditions in China and in South-Eastern Asia are moving in an opposite direction. The peace talks in China have failed. The communists have crossed the Yangtse, occupied Nanking and are approaching Shanghai. Chiang Kai Shek has come back from his retirement and is once more in command of the forces opposed to communism. There is however no guarantee that he will succeed. Factors that have contributed to his failure in the past are still in operation. The Americans have now definitely stated that they will not grant him any aid. There is therefore not much of a chance of success for him. The civil war will be prolonged until the whole country is occupied by the communists. There seems to be no escape from this. The Dutch have not learnt reason in their dealings in Indonesia or the French in Indo-China. The Government of Burma is still faced with serious opposition from the rebels and it looks for help from other countries. The British have not succeeded as yet in putting down insurrection in Malaya. It looks as if it will take a long time for things to settle themselves in this part of the world.

Back