The Spanish War
Fascist Powers Quit Patrol.—Following the attack on the Deutschland in May, Germany and Italy withdrew their ships from the international patrol of Spanish waters. About the middle of June their co-operation in the patrol was renewed on the basis of an agreement with England and France which provided that patrol vessels were to defend themselves against attack but were not to engage in retaliatory action without a consultation among the four powers. Both Spanish factions were also to be asked to establish safety zones for anchorage or other purposes. The co-operation, however, was not for long. Submarine attacks on the German cruiser Leipzig were reported, but until there was a full investigation the French and British governments refused the demand of the Germans that they join in a naval demonstration on the Spanish coast. Both the Fascist states thereupon again withdrew from the patrol, though their ships were kept in Spanish waters in view of what was described as the “semi-piratical conditions” there existing. German and Italian delegates remained in the Non-Intervention Committee, but statements of the chiefs of state in both Berlin and Rome suggested that the Fascist powers were close to abandonment of all pretense of neutrality in the Spanish struggle. The proposal that French and British war vessels take over the patrol areas assigned to Germany and Italy was met by the counter-proposal that the British and French governments accord belligerent rights to General Franco. This was refused, and it appeared likely that the scheme of co-operative neutrality might soon be abandoned altogether.
Within Spain the future of the Valencia government was darkened by the fall of Bilbao and unceasing party strife at Barcelona. The Fascist nations expressed confidence that, with their continued support, General Franco would soon be able to concentrate upon Madrid and gain a decisive victory for the insurgent cause.
European Politics
Plight of French Finance.—After the remarkable achievement of retaining power in France for slightly over a year, the Popular Front Ministry under Premier Leon Blum resigned on June 19 when the French Senate refused to give it a free hand in dealing with the complicated problems of French finance. A new Cabinet was soon organized under the Radical Socialist leader and former Premier Camille Chautemps. Though slightly less radical, the new government still represented the Popular Front. Yvon Delbos remained in the Foreign Office and former Premier Blum continued in the Cabinet as Vice President of the Council of Ministers without portfolio. Georges Bonnet, for the past six months Ambassador at Washington, was recalled to take over the Ministry of Finance and grapple with the difficulties attendant upon the flight of gold from France and the threatened fall of the franc. The first move of the new government was to suspend gold payments, declare a moratorium, and ask full powers from Parliament. Indications were that the franc would be allowed to take a lower valuation, which might be stabilized at about 25 to the American dollar.
German Church Conflict.—During June the new Kulturkampf between the Nazi government and the Catholic church increased in violence. Diplomatic relations between Berlin and the Vatican were strained and there were accusations from both sides that the terms of the Concordat with the Vatican had been disregarded. In Bavaria a decree was issued suppressing all Catholic public schools in the state as well as eleven private monastery schools. This action was justified on the ground that recent votes taken in Bavaria indicated a preference for nonconfessional schools. It was declared further that as the immorality charges against priests were further prosecuted they would afford additional basis for preventing church participation in the training of youth. During June the government conflict with the Protestant church leaders continued with equal bitterness. At the close of the month the government by decree took over control of church funds.
Minor Coalitions.—Although the solidarity of the Little Entente group of Balkan States has been considerably weakened in recent months, the decline of the League of Nations has prompted other small states of Europe to draw together for mutual support as well as encouragement of trade. Notable among these linkings of minor nations is the so-called “Oslo Group,” which had its beginnings in a conference at Oslo in 1930 and includes Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. On May 28 these nations signed a new agreement providing for increased commercial intercourse among the member states by lowering of tariffs and quota restrictions. At League meetings and elsewhere these states have also tended to act in concert, strongly favoring all moves for international conciliation and co-operation. As a spokesman of this group, even more than of France and England, it was thought that Premier Von Zeeland of Belgium during his June visit to the United States might seek to bring Washington into closer relations with this group of northern neutrals.
In the Near East a new league of Moslem states is also projected, to include Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. These nations would pledge mutual nonaggression and consultation for security, presumably against interference by the Western powers.
Soviet Treason Purge.—Within six months of the adoption of the new Soviet Constitution Russia was plunged into a campaign against “enemies of the state and people” unequalled since the first days of the republic. The purge was directed against plotters in military and other government services who had allegedly connived with agents of Trotsky or of foreign nations in schemes for the overthrow of the Stalin regime. Some observers, however, were inclined to believe that this sudden hue and cry against traitors was intended chiefly as a means of getting rid of certain discordant elements within the party who might threaten rivalry or were opposed to the conservative trend of the present Kremlin control.
The most sensational development, revealing weakness within the Red army, was the trial and swift execution of Marshal Tukachevsky, who until a month before had been a popular idol and Vice Commissar of Defense, together with seven other prominent army leaders. This brought the treason executions within a year’s time to 123. On June 16 President Cherviakoff of the White Russian Republic committed suicide following the arrest of 45 of his government associates, and a few days later 36 railway workers were executed in Siberia, bringing the unofficial” total to 168 executions since the Zinovieff trials of a year ago.
The international significance of this internal turmoil lay in the decreased weight of Russians influence as a factor in European politics, and her decreased value as a support to France and England against the Fascist powers. More vigorous efforts were made in London to improve relations with Germany, and to keep the Spanish kettle from boiling over into a European war.
British Commonwealth
Work of Imperial Conference.—The British Imperial Conference which opened in London on May 14 and ended a month later can hardly be said to have strengthened the hand of the mother-country in matters of foreign policy. Both Canada and South Africa definitely insisted on their right to make a choice of neutrality or support in case England should become involved in hostilities, and none of the dominions showed willingness to assume any considerable share of the burden of rearmament. It was agreed that security could be increased by free exchange of information and co-operation in measures for defense of vital ports and communications, but it was recognized as “the sole responsibility of the several Parliaments of the British Commonwealth to decide the nature and scope of their own defense policy.”
The advantages of an Anglo-American trade agreement were generally recognized. Unfortunately, perhaps, political as well as economic motives were emphasized, the argument being that the international effect of such increased solidarity would be well worth the liberalization of inter-imperial trade agreements which it would necessarily involve. Increased imports from the United States could be brought about only at some sacrifice of the preferences now granted to imports from the dominions. The best that the dominion premiers would promise was that they would submit the proposals to their home governments, which would mean further months of delay.
In the Far East, Australia, which still feels that advantages were lost by ending the Anglo-Japanese alliance, favored a renewal of efforts to secure the peace of the Pacific by a new non-aggression pact that would include the British nations, Japan, the United States, and perhaps other Pacific powers. It was apparently believed that another agreement might fare better than the pacts sealed at Washington in 1922. In general, though the conference no doubt brought a better understanding in matters of both foreign policy and defense, it remained clear that the dominions stand for isolation, and cannot fully support England in the policies she feels forced to adopt in European affairs.
Irish Elections.—The elections held in the Irish Free State on July 1 resulted in approval of the new Constitution, and a practical tie between the De Valera and the opposition parties. The Constitution ratified by the plebiscite provides for a President elected by popular vote for a 7-year term and entrusted with large powers of appointment and administration; a lower house similar to the old Dail Eireann; and a Senate of 60 members selected on a vocational basis to represent agriculture, industries, and other sides of the national life. Though there is no mention of British King or Empire the tenuous thread connecting the new state of Eire with the British Commonwealth is apparently not yet broken. The Constitution adopts the Catholic attitude toward religion, family relations, and private property.
United States and Latin America
Chaco Difficulties.—The obstacles in the way of a final Chaco settlement were again made evident by news dispatches in mid-June indicating that the Paraguayan army was in revolt against Provisional President Franco as a result of his efforts to carry out the peace plan agreed upon at Buenos Aires last January. According to this plan Paraguay was to withdraw her forces from the important Villa Montes— Santa Cruz highway and turn it over to international supervision. Paraguayan army leaders declared that this would necessitate moving their line back 200 miles. Bolivia, on the other hand, refused to renew diplomatic relations until the highway was surrendered. Hence the problem went back to Buenos Aires for further negotiations, without the stimulus of an Inter-American conference to help them along.
Neutrality and Sea Power.—Writing in the July Foreign Affairs on the new neutrality legislation, Mr. Walter Lippmann is impressed by the fact, as he sees it, that “the upshot is a law which, in the event of a great war, integrates American economy with British sea power and British finance.” It is Britain and her allies that will have the cash to pay for American goods, the ships to carry them, and the naval power to control the sea. That Congress, amid much criticism of the Wilson World War policy, should have adopted legislation that may again place us in a similar position, seems to Mr. Lippmann to indicate that there is some deep justification for this policy in the nature of the world as it is. He explains:
We have only to imagine our own position if the British supremacy were to collapse under an attack by Germany in the North Atlantic, by Italy in the Mediterranean, by Japan in the West Pacific .... The disruption of the British Empire would have consequences so incomparably much greater that we cannot really imagine them. One might as well have asked a citizen of Rome in the time of Augustus to imagine Europe when the Roman power had disintegrated.
Thus, though it is no doubt written in the book of fate that Britain will no longer carry on alone the authority she exercised in the nineteenth century, it is also written in that book that our civilization is doomed to another dark age unless that authority can be perpetuated by people who intend to live by the same political tradition.
There is no alternative—except a century or more of wars fought savagely and indecisively for world supremacy. Whether the power that Britain exercised in the nineteenth century is to be perpetuated through Geneva is a relatively minor question. The great question is whether a nation placed as we are, and desiring above all else to live and let live, can preserve its isolation if there is no power in the world which preserves the order of the world .... In the final test, no matter what we wish now or now believe, though collaboration with Britain and her allies is difficult and often irritating, we shall protect that connection because in no other way can we fulfill our destiny.
Articles on Foreign Policy.-—In the July issue of the quarterly Foreign Affairs the articles of special naval interest, in addition to the one by Walter Lippmann summarized in the paragraph above, include a survey of recent Mediterranean history by Professor William L. Langer of Harvard, in which he points out the new situation created by the increased holdings of Italy and France in the Levant, and also the danger to both England and France that might develop from a Fascist victory in Spain. Another article, on “British Policy toward Spain,” by D. Graham Hutton, traces the hesitant moves of British diplomacy in this field, and ends with the remark that, “If the growth of British armaments embolden the new Cabinet and Prime Minister to take a firmer line in foreign policy, none would welcome it more than the British People themselves.” In the same issue, “Supervising the American traffic in Arms” is surveyed by Joseph C. Green, and “Europe vs. the United States in Latin America” is discussed by Gaston Nerval.
Japan Rejects Gun Curbs.—It will be recalled that the United States accepted the 14-inch-gun caliber limit of the London Naval Treaty only on the condition that prior to April of this year it be accepted by Japan as well as the other naval powers. Although earlier British inquiries had indicated Japan’s unfavorable attitude toward the limitation, the United States government before its final abandonment addressed further inquiries to the five nations formerly joined in the naval treaties. As was anticipated, Japan again declined to accept any qualitative restrictions of this or other nature. The Japanese view, as explained at Tokyo, was that the whole question of naval limitations was primarily political, and that unless conceded parity with Britain and the United States, she preferred to be unbound by restrictions that would prevent both freedom and secrecy in plans for naval construction.
Far East
Clash on the Amur.—At the close of June a dangerous border conflict between Soviet and Manchukuo-Japanese forces occurred on the upper reaches of the Amur River. One Soviet gunboat was sunk and another was damaged. The Manchukuo authorities demanded that Soviet craft “keep to the main navigation route of the Amur,” and troop concentrations were reported on both sides of the frontier.
Japan’s Munition Production.—According to articles appearing in the Japanese press in June the Japanese military and naval expenditures over the 6-year period 1938-43 will amount to 11,000,000,000 yen, of which about 5,000,000,000 will be spent for munitions. This will call for a threefold expansion of industrial production in the munitions field before the end of the period, an expansion chiefly affecting chemical plants and heavy industries. Machinery to the value of 600,000,000 yen must be purchased abroad, chiefly from Germany, which has entered into a triangular arrangement for taking over most of the Manchukuo soya bean crop in exchange. Training of engineering and other technical factory experts must be similarly expanded.
Tokyo’s China Policy.—Unofficial reports from Tokyo indicated that in return for Chinese recognition of Manchukuo, the new Japanese Cabinet might be willing to extend a wide range of concessions, including abolition of the present pro-Japanese government in East Hopei, suppression of smuggling, and withdrawal of Japanese support in northern Chahar. Nanking, however, was inclined to take the view that the new Japanese ministry represented no real decline of military control, and that a settlement by mutual concessions was as remote as ever. It was believed that Foreign Minister Hirota would insist on the 3-point program of his predecessors Arita and Sato; that is, genuine economic and cultural co-operation in North China, suppression of anti-Japanese propaganda, and a united Sino-Japanese front against communism. In the present state of Chinese feeling it was believed that no central Chinese government could accept these terms even if it were so inclined.