BY PROF. M. VENKATARANGAIYA M.A.
THERE was a further deterioration in the situation
in Palestine during the month of May. The responsibility for this has to be
borne in the main by the United States and Britain. In the case of the United
States, the defect lay in her leaders not knowing their own mind and in their
advocating one policy at one time and another at another time. In the case of
Britain, the fault was of a quite different character. It was her determination
and even obstinacy–in adhering to a particular policy in spite of changes in
circumstances. Russia as usual was bent on utilising the situation for her own
purposes which in recent times means the extension of the sphere of her
influence. All these three Powers worked through the machinery of the United
Nations but it ought to be clear to everyone that at present the U.N.O. has no
individuality of its own and that it has become a plaything in the hands of the
United States. It is her voice that dominates in the counsels of the U.N.O.,
subject to the exercise of Veto by the Soviet.
In the survey published in the March issue, an
account was given of the nature of the problem in Palestine and of the
conflicts of interest prevailing among the various parties to the issue. Things
would have become easier if the United States had adhered sincerely to the plan
of partition which it sponsored at the session of the General Assembly of the
U.N.O. in November last and which was finally approved by the Assembly itself.
Even then she was fully aware of all the difficulties that lay in giving effect
to the partition plan. She knew that the Arab States were dead opposed to it
and that the British would sabotage it. In spite of all this, she favoured the
partition scheme. But her leaders changed their mind shortly after the Assembly
dispersed and they came forward with a proposal for a temporary Trusteeship.
They did not adhere even to this. Although they were mainly responsible for the
convening of a special session of the Assembly to consider the Palestine issue
in April last, they did not press this subject of Trusteeship before the
Assembly nor did they give any definite lead as to how the partition plan was
to be modified. The Assembly sat for a month, wasted much of its time in debates
and discussions of a futile character and dispersed without giving any
constructive lead. The result was that when on the 15th of May the British
Mandate ended, the only scheme that had any international validity was the
partition approved by the Assembly in November, 1947.
The question therefore was whether the Security
Council would give effect to it. The only way of doing it was to send to
Palestine an International Force and use it against all those that stood in the
way of partition. But the Council was not prepared to do this, as it would have
resulted in bringing into Palestine Soviet regiments–a step to which the United
States and Britain had all along been opposed. The further alternative was to
cancel the partition plan. But this straight forward course was not adopted.
The Council Spent its time in endless debate. Meanwhile the Jews would not keep
quiet. They took their own measures to give effect to the partition scheme and
proclaimed on May 15, the day on which the British Mandate came to an end–the
establishment of the State of Israel with a provisional government, a well
organised administrative machinery and defence forces equipped with up-to-date
arms ready to uphold the integrity of their new State.
The United States which Wanted to scrap partition
and establish a temporary Trusteeship immediately recognised the new State of
Israel which really meant the acceptance of partition. The Soviet also did the
same and in the course of the next few days several States of Eastern Europe,
South Africa, and some other States extended their recognition to Israel. It
meant their virtually agreeing to the partitioning of Palestine. But all this
could have been done through the Security Council itself. That would have gone
to some extent in restoring the prestige of the U.N.O., a prestige which was
completely lost by its failure to take collective measures for preventing
breaches of peace, the very purpose for which it was founded.
The parties to the Palestine issue are not merely
the Jews and Arabs in that country. If that were the case, the issue would have
been settled long ago. The Jews had shown their Superiority in the use of force
and they could easily have compelled the Arabs to reconcile themselves to
partition. The Arab States outside Palestine had however been taking interest
in the issue, and on the 15th of May they invaded the country with their
armies. Their aim was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish State. Now that
it was established, they were determined to destroy it and bring about the
political unity of the country. Between these Arab armies and those of Israel
war has been going on for the last three weeks. The old city of Jerusalem–a
city holy to the followers of Christianity, Islam and Judaism–was completely
destroyed and both the Arab and the Jewish masses have been put to much
suffering and misery. It is however not quite certain whether the Arab States
would be in a position to crush the Jews and undo partition. They do not
possess any decisive military superiority. There is no real union among all the
Arab States. King Abdulla of Transjordan is only anxious to become the ruler of
Greater Syria, and in spite of all his vehement protests against partition he
may ultimately agree to it if Arab Palestine is included in his Kingdom and if
this paves the way for Greater Syria. The King of Saudi Arabia is the
hereditary enemy of Abdulla, and it is not likely that he will act in concert
with him for a long time. The military progress so far made by the Arab States
is not appreciable. They have not yet been able to occupy any tracts where the
Jews are in a majority. The conclusion is that even the intervention of the
Arab States might not result in the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel
if the War is really a war between these two parties.
But the ‘great’ Powers do not want to leave the war
to the Jews and the Arabs. They have their interests to maintain and in the
pursuit of these interests some are prepared to befriend the Arabs and some the
Jews.
Among those that are anxious to befriend the Arabs
the first place is to be given to the British. It is true that they have given
up their Mandate over Palestine but this does not mean that they want to
abandon their imperialistic role in the Middle East. This they want to retain at
any cost. This was made clear by the assurance which Mr. Christopher Mayhew,
the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, gave to the House of Commons on May 6
that Britain “intended to stay in the Middle East and the Mediterranean despite
her withdrawal from Palestine.” He also said, “The Government recognises that
the Middle East is a vital factor for world peace. We recognise its supreme
importance to the safety of the British Commonwealth and we are determined to
stay there.” This statement affords the key to British manoeuvres. The Mandate
in Palestine has been found from experience to be an inappropriate instrument
for maintaining the British hold over the area. To hand over the country to a
friendly Arab Power and to cultivate by other means the friendship of the Arab
States in its neighbourhood –this is now regarded as a better instrument for
the purpose. And Britain, also has treaty relations with Egypt, Iraq and
Transjordan which are taking an active part in the war against the Jews, and in
accordance with these treaties she has to render them military help. She is
doing this, and so long as the Arabs can rely on British help they will
continue to fight Israel.
The United States is interested in the Jews,
especially at present, when both the Republican and Democratic parties are
anxious to get the vote of the American Jews in the ensuing Presidential
elections. Of course they do not want to displease the Arab States and endanger
the oil concessions they are already enjoying. This accounts for the vacillation
in the policy of the United States; but for the time being they are more
sympathetic towards the Jews and it will be no wonder if they grant a loan to
the State of Israel and also lift the embargo on import of arms into that area.
The Russians also are anxious to give all moral support to Israel as they see
in it the nucleus of a Communistic government in the Middle East.
At one stage it appeared as if the Palestine issue
might create a rift between the United States and Britain, but it has somehow
been healed. The American threat that they would refuse aid to Britain under
the Marshall Plan has made the British modify to a slight extent their pro-Arab
sympathies and there is every likelihood of their pursuing a policy in common
with that of the United States.
There is however a comical–perhaps even a
farcical–aspect to the Palestine issue. The Security Council which has not been
able to handle it in any effective way, even though it had thirteen months to
consider it before the ending of the British Mandate, still thinks that it can
bring about a truce between the Jews and the Arabs and that the period of truce
can be utilised to bring about an amicable settlement between the two parties.
As a matter of fact, the Council passed a resolution to this effect on May 29
and threatened that, if the cease fire order were not accepted by the parties,
the situation would be reconsidered with a view to taking action under chapter
VII of the Charter–action like the enforcing of economic sanctions or even the Use
of armed force. Both parties have expressed their willingness to accept the
ceasefire order, but subject to their own conditions. These conditions how ever
are of such a character that they would not be accepted by the Council. The war
is still going on and there is no likelihood of any truce being concluded.
Force alone will decide the Palestine issue. The Security Council has
demonstrated its utter incapacity to settle the question by peaceful means,
mainly because of the ingrained habit among the great Powers to look at every
question from the point of view of their selfish interests instead of from the
point of view of collective good and security. After this mishandling of the
Palestine issue–coming closely on the mishandling of the Kashmir issue–no one
seriously believes that the Security Council is of any use in fulfilling the
purposes of the United Nations as detailed in the opening articles of the U.N.
Charter. Peace in any part of the world–now that it has become so
interdependent–depends entirely upon the great Powers acting in concert.
Is there any hope of such a concert among them, a
hope of the removal of existing misunderstandings and suspicions? For a few
hours in the month of May there was a ray of such hope, but it all vanished as
quickly as it made its appearance.
It was reported from Moscow on the 12th of May
that, as a result of some correspondence that passed between the American
Ambassador to Soviet Russia and the Soviet Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the
latter agreed to meet the United States delegates in a conference for the
discussion and settlement of the outstanding issues which have for some time
created misunderstandings between them. The world immediately drew the
inference that such a conference would be held and that the two great Powers
would settle their differences, and that instead of preparations for war the
efforts of nations would be devoted to the tasks of economic and social
reconstruction.
But it so happened that, simultaneously with the
publication of this report from Moscow, there was also published a statement
from President Truman that the American Government never invited the Soviet to
have bilateral discussions on any differences existing between the two
countries and that such discussions would serve no useful purpose at all. A
similar statement was made by Mr. Marshall. All this appeared to be somewhat of
a mystery but the subsequent statements and counter-statements made by the
leading men in the two countries cleared the atmosphere of all this mystery.
During recent months the belief gained ground in
the United States that the only way by which Soviet expansionism could be
arrested was by active preparations for war. Universal conscription,
appropriations of unheard-of amounts of money for strengthening the military,
naval, and air armaments, the extension of military bases, the sending of
military equipment to Turkey, Iran, and China, the ratification by the Congress
of the European Recovery Programme and the move for helping the West European
nations with defence equipment–all these steps were taken by the United States
with a view to impress on the Soviet that America would be ready even to fight
a global war for the purpose of putting a break on Russian imperialism. The
American Government was confident of the success of this policy that they
thought that Russia would be in a mood to come to some kind of understanding on
the various questions at issue between the two countries. The American
Ambassador at Moscow was authorised to send a note to Molotov on May 4 giving a
clear account of American Foreign Policy, with a suggestion that “if the
Soviet Government would abandon certain courses of conduct and action which
have kept the world in a state of uneasiness and confusion…they will not
meet on our part any lack of readiness or desire to make our contribution
towards the stabilization of world conditions….As for the United States the
door always remains open for discussion and settlement of our differences.” In
his reply Molotov criticised the policy of the United States but welcomed the
proposal for a discussion and settlement of the differences. So far there was
nothing to take objection to. But what happened was that on May 11 the Soviet
Government chose, contrary to all diplomatic precedent, to release without
notice to the United States a portion of the correspondence. All of its own
statements were released to the Press but only a portion of the statement of
the American Ambassador. “The procedure went much further than that. In the
last and most important paragraph–of only four sentences–two of the sentences
were omitted, completely distorting the meaning, so as to form the basis for
the Soviet propaganda purpose.” (The sentences omitted are italicised above.)
In addition to this the reply was released to the public even before it was
received by the American Government.
All this irritated the American rulers. They
therefore found it necessary to go to the other extreme and tell the world that
the only purpose of the American Ambassador’s letter to Molotov was to tell the
latter as firmly and as clearly as possible what the American foreign policy
was, so that there might be no misconception about it, that the American call
to Molotov for decent and reasonable relations represented no new departure in American
policy, that the Americans had no intention of entering into bilateral
negotiations with the Soviet Government, and that what they wanted was action
and not discussions or conferences. Any further hope of bilateral conversations
was lost when a few days later Marshal Stalin chose to reply to an open letter
addressed to him by Henry Wallace, the rival of Truman in the ensuing
Presidential elections. It was interpreted in America as in interference with
elections there. All the same, unofficial notice was taken of Stalin’s reply
and the American Government answered the eleven points proposed by him as a
basis for talks. These points included Armaments, Atomic Energy, Peace
Settlement with Germany and Japan, Korea, China, interference in the domestic affairs
of other nations, etc.
The present attitude of the American Government
towards negotiations with the Soviet is brought out in an address which Marshal
delivered on May 28 to the National Convention of the General Federation of
Women’s Clubs in which he observed thus; “I feel certain that the continuation
of the firm course we have been following will lead to the solution of our
difficulties and will eventually clear the way to a sound, basis for peace. I
am absolutely certain that only such a firm and determined course
can save the situation for democracies.” The announcement that the Springfield
(U.S.) Armoury had started production of a machine-gun for jet-fighter planes
capable of firing 100 shots a minute, at a rate unequalled since the end of the
war, U.S. troops and supplies are moving through Canada to Alaska, that a 207
billion dollar bill was passed by the House of Representatives for improving U.
S. bases and posts from Iceland to Hawaii, and that 29 American war ships would
conduct major manoeuvers in the Mediterranean during June and July indicates
the nature of the ‘firm’ Course in which Americans seem to have faith today.
Of the General Elections held in May, two have some
international significance. They are the elections in South Africa and in
Czechoslovakia. The elections in South Africa conformed to the traditional
conception of democracy, though the Communists claim that the Czechoslovakian
elections are much more democratic than the South African. The purpose of a
general election in a democracy is to give an opportunity to the voters to
freely choose their rulers. And it is assumed that no free choice is Possible
unless there are alternative candidates or lists of candidates to choose from,
and unless there is freedom for people to criticise the policies for which
these candidates stand. It is on this assumption that elections have been
carried on in South Africa. There were rival parties, each with its own
candidates for various constituencies. For months an election Campaign has been
carried on. In the newspapers as well as on platforms, leaders were free to
express their views on various subjects and educate the public so that on the
day of voting they might choose the candidate with a knowledge of what they
were actually doing. Provision was made for vote by ballot and therefore for
secrecy in voting, so that there might be complete freedom to the voter to
choose anyone he wanted. The situation in Czechoslovakia was different. As
early as February last, the Communists seized Power by force. They did not wait
for a general election to find out how much support they had from among the
electorate. Having seized power, they put into prison or drove into exile the
leaders of parties opposed to them. They also declared unlawful the existence
of some of the parties whom they disliked most. And in the elections all the
candidates were chosen by them. Previous to the elections there was complete
censorship of the Press. No freedom of speech at public meetings was permitted.
All these three months people were fed on the propaganda carried on only by one
party–the Communist Party. On the polling day, each voter was given a list of
candidates selected by the Communist Party. Voting was compulsory, and secrecy
was not provided for at all places. The voter was called on to say whether he
approved or disapproved of the list, put up by the Communists. There were not
different lists of different candidates to choose from. The elections were
held, and ninety per cent of the voters approved the list prepared by the
Communist Party. In Parliament there is practically no opposition, and the
elections have merely registered the dictatorship of the party that seized
power by force in February last.
In the South African elections the United Party led
by General Smuts, which was in power during the previous ten years, got
defeated and Dr. Malan’s Nationalist Party won, even though the difference
between the strength of the two parties is very small.
The issue that divided the United Party from the
Nationalists is the position of the whites in relation to non-whites in South
Africa. The whites number 21 millions while the non-whites are more than 9
millions. The white constitute the ruling oligarchy in the country. It is they
alone that have the right to vote, barring a few coloured inhabitants in the
Cape Province. It is the policy of, the Nationalists to perpetuate for all time
the supremacy of the white over the non-whites, and this supremacy is to be
maintained by a strict adherence to segregation. The United Party is not less
enthusiastic than the Nationalists in the matter of maintaining white
supremacy, but they want to adopt a liberal policy with a view to bring about
in course of time the economic and social uplift of the non-whites. The coming
of the Nationalists to office means a tightening of the policy of segregation.
According to Malan, segregation “means for the non-European the creation of
greater independence and a feeling of self-respect as well as the provision of
better opportunities for free development in accordance with their nature and
abilities.” Dr. Malan does not want to have Indians in South Africa. He is for
sending them back too India, and if he persists in carrying out this policy it
may mean the worsening of the position of Indians there to start with, and also
of the relations between India and South Africa. Dr. Malan is a staunch
republican, and one who advocates the complete severance of political ties
between his country and Britain. He is also a sort of fascist and a believer in
some kind of party-dictatorship. His accession to office therefore has created
a new situation in South Africa. The only hope that he may precipitate matters
is that his majority in the Assembly is small. It is 79 against 74 belonging to
the party of Smuts. And with such a strong opposition facing him, he may be
compelled to proceed slowly and cautiously in the execution of his policies.