FROM SEPTEMBER 20 TO OCTOBER 20
WORLD SECURITY PLAN
Ninety Per Cent Agreement.—The six-week security talks of United States, British, and Russian delegates ended on September 29 with what was described as “90 per cent agreement,” yet the 10 per cent area of disagreement included a very vital issue—whether each of the major powers should, as the Soviet Union insisted, exercise an absolute veto in the council, and thus be able to prevent concerted action against itself as a possible disrupter of world peace. Most previous disruptions have been by major powers. On another point there was no final action, that is, the question whether Congress or the Executive should control the vote of the American delegate in the Council, and with it the participation of United States forces in concerted action. In general the chief criticism of the plan at this tentative stage was that it gave only an advisory role to the small and “middle” states, such for example as Canada, Italy, and Brazil. With 6 rotating seats in the Council of 11, it would require a unanimous vote of these states to override the “Big Five” (if France is included). As for the 10 per cent of differences, it was believed that these could be ironed out, if at all, only at a future meeting of the Allied chiefs of state. Since the proposals published on October 9 are still subject to change, they are given here as summarized in the press:
The new security league would be composed of an assembly of all peace-loving nations, whose functions would be mainly advisory; an executive council of eleven nations, four of whom, the United States, Great Britain, Soviet Russia, and China (and probably France) would be permanent members, and the other six or seven would be elected on a geographical basis for a limited term; an international court of justice to deal with justiciable disputes, and a general secretariat.
The executive council would have primary responsibility for maintaining peace and security and it would have far greater authority than the League of Nations council to deal with potential or actual aggressors. This council would have authority to call on the member states to put at its disposal certain armed forces and facilities to be directed by the council against any aggressor or potential aggressor for the purpose of “enforcing peace” whenever a majority of the members of the council, including all the permanent members, voted to do so.
A veto by one of the permanent members or by any six nonpermanent members would be sufficient to stop action by the League itself, but each nation would retain the right to take whatever action it considered necessary to take as a sovereign state in protection of its own vital interest.
The member states would undertake to put force at the disposal of the Executive Council in accordance with a general agreement governing the number and type of forces and the kind and extent of facilities which the council required to prevent or repel aggression. . . .
It is understood that the Russian delegation did not press for the formation of an international military air corps, although this proposal was contained in the draft plan which they submitted to the delegates. The matter was discussed and opposed by the American and British delegations and was then dropped.
Neutral nations will be permitted to join the international organization and the joint agreement provides that the Axis powers may be allowed to join after they have proved their pacific intentions.
In general, the agreement emphasizes certain principles: That all states should agree to settle disputes by pacific means; that the proposed organization should be “simple and flexible”; that authority should be given to the member states in accordance with their ability to enforce peace; that the principle of “unanimity” in the assembly of all the nations should be rejected; that all measures short of war, joint diplomatic and economic sanctions, for example, should be exhausted before any resort to the use of armed force, but that once a majority of the council, including all the permanent members, have agreed to use force, it should be used quickly and effectively to enforce peace before there is any danger of a major conflict.
The proposed world organization would differ from the old League of Nations in three noteworthy respects. First, it would permit decisions of the Council by a majority vote, instead of a unanimous vote as in the old League. Second, it would not explicitly guarantee the integrity and political independence of all member states. Third, it would not, as did Art. XVI of the League Covenant, require all member states to sever automatically all trade and financial relations with a nation declared an “aggressor.” In fact peace efforts would begin earlier, and without necessarily settling the difficult questions as to which nation’s acts constituted aggression.
China Approves Plan.—Following the talks with Soviet delegates at Dumbarton Oaks, the British and American representatives joined with those of China in further discussion of the security plan there evolved. The talks with the Chinese delegation headed by Dr. Victor Wellington Koo opened in September 29 and ended a week later. The Chinese stressed the points (1) that the measures for dealing with possible aggressors should be thoroughly worked out beforehand and not left for improvisation after crises arose; (2) that the causes of international friction should be lessened by relieving tensions in the economic and other fields. For this purpose six commissions were suggested—on economic, social, territorial, law codification, labor, and cultural problems. The Chinese, however, did not press for major changes, and approved the plan as drawn up, with the understanding that further changes could be made in the subsequent general conference. This general conference of the United Nations would be called as soon as remaining difficulties had been adjusted by the major Allied powers.
MOVES OF UNITED NATIONS
Warning on War Guilty.—In late September Secretary of State Hull made public the warning issued in August to neutral nations to the effect that if they harbored German war criminals their relations with the United States “would be adversely affected for years to come.” It was indicated that favorable replies had been received from Sweden, Turkey, Switzerland, and Spain, but that uncertainty continued regarding Portugal and Argentina, though the latter had given assurances to the British government.
Fate of Germany.—In a proclamation to Germans in occupied territory on September 28 General Eisenhower stated that Nazi laws would be ended, militarism eradicated, and military and party leaders “punished as they deserved.” In occupied areas all German courts and educational institutions were suspended and inhabitants were ordered to “obey without question all the enactments and orders of the military government.” German officials were charged with the duty of “remaining at their posts until further orders and obeying and enforcing all orders or directives of the military government or Allied authorities. ...”
As for the later fate of Germany, unconfirmed news reports suggested Allied plans to internationalize the Kiel Canal; transfer East Prussia and other areas in the east to Poland; award strips of contiguous territory to Denmark, the Netherlands, and Belgium; and perhaps divide the rest of Germany or decentralize its government into three autonomous states. In the immediate post-war period Russia would administer Germany east of a line drawn from Lübeck to the Elbe, with a largely peasant population which the Soviets would like to use for reconstruction work in Russia; England would administer northwest Germany with its seaports and industrial area; and the United States would administer southern Germany.
United Nations Shipping Pool.—The shipping pool pact of the United Nations signed in London on August 6 was later ratified by the powers concerned—Belgium, Canada, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with further approval by the French Committee. It will extend six months after the conclusion of hostilities with Germany and Japan (whichever ends later), and will thus tend to prevent any premature post-war competitive scramble for business. It may even serve as preliminary for a postwar international shipping agreement. The shipping of the eight nations, as well as that of France, fall under the control of a joint maritime council and joint executive board. For the present the executive board will be limited to representatives of Britain, the United States, the Netherlands, and Norway.
Agenda for Aviation Parley.—The United States Government on September 29 submitted to the fifty or more nations invited a tentative agenda for the International Civil Aviation Conference which is to meet in this country before the end of the year. The agenda was divided into four main headings:
(I) Arrangements covering the transitional period, including routes and services to operate, landing and transit rights, control of rates and competitive practices, etc.
(II) Technical standards and procedures, covering communications systems, navigational aids, rules of the air, airworthiness of aircraft, exchange of meteorological information, registration of aircraft, customs procedure, etc.
(III) Establishing a multilateral Aviation Convention and International Aeronautical Body, including the formulation of principles to be followed in drawing up the convention and setting up the control body.
(IV) Consideration of establishment of Interim Council to serve during an interim period, supervise work of committees, and perform such other functions as the conference may determine.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Friction with Argentina.-—A further stiffening in the attitude of the U. S. State Department toward the Argentine military- dictatorship was indicated by a government order in late September that American ships should no longer call at Argentine ports. Though U. S. ships constitute only about 6 per cent of the tonnage entering Argentina, the order was regarded as a warning of more serious trade restrictions to come. In a press release on September 29, President Roosevelt supported the State Department’s policy by speaking of “the growth of Nazi-Fascist influence” in Argentina and “repudiation of solemn inter-American obligations,” though he felt assured “that the majority of the people of Argentina have remained steadfast in their faith in their own free, democratic traditions and in their support of the nations . . . against the Nazis.” Despite this latter statement, there was evidence of a growing anti-United States sentiment in the Argentine press, and among the people. As regards trade restrictions, it has been pointed out that England gets 500,000 tons of beef a year from Argentina and has a total investment in the country of $1,375,000,000.
Mexico Ratifies Oil Accord.—The Mexican Senate on September 29 ratified the settlement with the United States in connection with the expropriation of U. S. oil companies in 1938. By the agreement Mexico will pay $24,000,000 to the oil companies, with interest at 3 per cent from the date of expropriation. The first installment of one- third was paid in 1943, subject to later ratification, and the remainder will be paid in five annual installments.
WESTERN EUROPE
French Government Changes.—The first noteworthy step of General de Gaulle’s government after its establishment in Paris was to convoke an enlarged “consultative” National Assembly to meet on November 7. The new assembly was enlarged to 246 members—60 of them pre-war deputies and senators, 149 of them new members for metropolitan France, and 12 for overseas possessions. The resistance movement in France controlled about one-fourth of the assembly. It was announced that election of municipal officials and council members in the 89 departments of France would begin early in February, the voters including both men and women over 21. National elections will come after the return of some 2,500,000 prisoners and laborers from Germany. For the future of France, General de Gaulle in a speech at Lille on October 1 outlined a system of planned economy, largely under government control but “without excluding the stimulus of just profit and individual initiative.”
It has been reported that the British at Quebec pressed for full recognition of the De Gaulle regime, but that the United States was not ready for this move. In behalf of his government, Foreign Minister Georges Bidault of France on September 22 spoke strongly for such recognition, for a place in Allied councils, and a share in decisions regarding the future of Germany and Europe. The French embassy in Washington was reopened in late September by M. Henri Hoffentot, chief of the French delegation to this country.
Italy and Colonies.—Early in October the Bonomi Government in Italy declared war on Japan. While this meant little in a military way, aside from possible use of Italian naval craft, it was indicative of Italy’s hope to resume a place as a European and colonial power. Commenting on Foreign Minister Eden’s earlier statement that Italy’s colonies would not be returned to her, Italian government spokesmen expressed some protest and concern. They put forward the view that while this might hold for Ethiopia and Albania, the “empire” of Fascist days, it would be less applicable to older colonies of the Liberal period, such as Eritrea, Libya, and Somaliland. Viewing with some chagrin the generous armistice terms to Romania, Premier Bonomi expressed a hope that “democratic Italy” might receive aid and understanding from the western democratic powers. Some trend in that direction was already indicated by transport talks with Italian representatives in London and consultations in Washington over Red Cross relief.
Belgian Restoration.—Following the return of the Pierlot Cabinet from London to Brussels, Prince Charles Count of Flanders, younger brother of the captive King Leopold of Belgium, was made temporary regent, pending the release of his brother from Germany. The Pierlot Ministry then resigned to give the regent a free hand in organizing a new government.
NORTHERN EUROPE
Moscow Conference.—On October 9 Prime Minister Churchill, Foreign Minister Eden, and a large staff of military and diplomatic advisers arrived somewhat unexpectedly in Moscow for extended conferences with Soviet leaders. The meeting was apparently not a follow-up of the Quebec Conference; it dealt primarily with efforts at a Polish settlement and harmonization of Russia and Russian interests in the Balkans and elsewhere in Europe. A first measure was to call to Moscow the heads of the rival London and Lublin governments of Poland in an attempted “showdown” settlement of the Polish problem.
Polish Factional Strife.—The calling of representatives of the London and Lublin governments to Moscow for talks with Premiers Churchill and Stalin was the latest development in the long strife between the rival Polish regimes. Premier Mikolajczyk and Foreign Minister Tadeusz Romer arrived in Moscow from London on October 12 and engaged at once in talks with the Lublin Poles, but a week later prospects of a working compromise remained doubtful. Prior to this time the Polish cabinet in London had made some rather futile placatory moves. The anti-Soviet General Sosnkowski had been ousted as commander in chief of Polish forces on September 29 and replaced by General “Bor” (Tadeusz Komorowski). But Bor was at once denounced by the Lublin Poles as a “criminal” for his “premature” uprising in Warsaw, and his subsequent surrender to the Germans was described as a “trick,” a “deliberate delivery of his forces to Hitler hangmen to prevent their joining up with the Poles cooperating with Soviet troops.” London Poles, on the other hand, were equally bitter over the failure of Soviet forces to give aid to the beleaguered Warsaw fighters.
View of Soviet Policy.-—Writing in Life for September 4, William C. Bullitt, former U. S. Ambassador to France and the U.S.S.R., gave the following as the view of future Soviet policy taken by Italians.
Today, when the moral unity of Western civilization has been shattered by the crimes of the Germans—Rome sees again approaching from the East a wave of conquerors. And dominating the hearts and minds and, indeed, the talk of all men throughout Italy is the question: “Will the rest of this war be subjugation of Europe by Moscow instead of by Berlin?” . . .
The Romans expect the Soviet Union to dominate Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. They expect the Russians to use varied methods in establishing control and to avoid setting up communist governments immediately in countries where communists are few. They feel that the present Soviet imperialists have learned from the experience of the Communist Bela Kun government (established in Hungary after World War I but so incompetent that it went down in a welter of violent action) that strong communist parties and administrations must be organized before the installation of communist governments. Therefore, they expect the Soviet Union at first to insist only on the installation of the strange thing its propagandists call a “genuinely friendly democratic government,” i.e., a government under which the communists will be at liberty to organize themselves strongly enough to destroy all democratic liberties and install a soviet totalitarian regime.
Fighting in Finland.—At last reports in October there were still 15 to 20 German divisions in northern Finland which had not been expelled or disarmed but which were under attack by both Finnish and Soviet forces. In the circumstances Finland requested an extension of two to three months in the time allowed for demobilization of her troops. By October 16 Russian forces had occupied the northern base of Petsamo and advanced 20 miles southward. Porkkala, the base leased by the Soviets to the southwest of Helsinki, was taken over at the end of September. Sweden on that date closed her Gulf of Bothnia and Baltic ports to all foreign shipping, “in view of the completely changed situation in the Baltic.” This move chiefly affected traffic with Germany. Swedish insurance companies a month earlier had refused to underwrite Swedish ships sailing for Germany.
BALKANS AND SOUTHERN EUROPE
Bulgarian Armistice.—Shortly after Prime Minister Churchill and his party had arrived in Moscow in early October, the armistice terms to Bulgaria were agreed upon, and on October 11 they were accepted by the Bulgarian government. They called for the complete evacuation of Bulgarian troops and officials from Greece and Yugoslavia within 15 days. A joint United States, British and Soviet military commission, under Russian chairmanship, was to supervise the evacuation. There had been reports of earlier agreements between Bulgarian Leftists and pro-Soviet partisans in both Greece and Yugoslavia, but the armistice terms apparently settled the question of Bulgaria’s getting out of occupied territory and losing her coveted outlet on the Aegean. In other words, the Soviet government showed willingness to impose armistice terms acceptable to the western Allies. As regards reparations, punishment for atrocities, etc., Premier Georgieff of Bulgaria took the ground that the country as a whole should not be held responsible for the acts of “a few Hitlerite agents who by accident of birth happened to be Bulgarians.”
Strife in Hungary.—An armistice appeal and order to troops to cease fighting was issued on October 15 by Admiral Nicholas Horthy, long-time regent of Hungary. The message stated that Germany had obviously lost the war, referred to the “occupation” of Hungary by Nazi troops and police last March, and spoke of the establishment of the pro-Nazi Sztojay ministry at that time and the subsequent violation of pledges by the Germans. When Admiral Horthy issued his appeal, Hungarian peace agents had already been in Moscow for three weeks and had no doubt been told the peace terms— opening of Hungarian territory to Allied troops and a virtual shift to the Allied side in the war. However, the surrender of this last satellite state was temporarily halted by a familiar type of German putsch on October 16 which ousted Horthy, took over the capital, and set up another pro-Nazi government headed by Major Ferenc Szalasi. Its tenure promised to be brief, for Hungarian troops were in revolt and Russian forces were not far from Budapest.
Factions in Greece.—Athens was in Allied hands by October 15, and German forces were rapidly evacuating northern Greece. One of the chief tasks of British forces moving into the country was to maintain order and restrain ELAS partisans and their EAM (Left Wing fighting forces) from taking summary vengeance on all Greeks believed guilty of collaboration with the Germans. Meantime the Alexandria Government advanced Greek claims to the Dodecanese Islands and parts of Albania, and expressed opposition to any surrender of Greek territory in order to create an independent state of Macedonia. The Papandreau Cabinet moved to Athens a few days after its occupation by Allied forces, but there was little monarchist sentiment in the capital, and little assurance of the return of King George or the permanence of the present government.
Trouble in Egypt.—On October 8 King Farouk of Egypt dismissed his Nationalist Premier Nahas Pasha, with whom he had been in frequent difficulties in the past two years, and called on Achmed Maher Pasha, President of the Chamber of Deputies, to form a new government. The dismissal of Nahas Pasha was thought to have had British approval, and was connected with the recent leadership of Nahas in efforts to form a Pan-Arab League.
Plans for such a league were considered in a conference of Arab states at Alexandria in late August and were given tentative approval by five states—-Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Trans-Jordan. Saudi Arabia and Yemen took part in the conference only as observers, and it remained to be seen whether Britain, with her extensive interests and treaty rights in the Middle East, would sanction the proposal. Plans for a smaller union, including Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Trans-Jordan, were left in abeyance because of the innumerable complications, religious, political, and economic, which would be involved.
FAR EAST
Chungking Parleys Fail.—After over four months of talk at Chungking, Communist delegates returned to Yenan in October with little evidence of a better understanding with the Chungking regime. However, five members of the “People’s Political Council” were to go to Yenan and “investigate conditions” in the Communist- dominated areas. While it was doubtless true that little in the way of supplies from the Western powers had trickled through to the Communists, it was also true that little of such aid had reached Chungking. Supplies coming through from India by air transport were estimated at about 25,000 tons a month, or half that in the days of the Burma Road.
Stalemate in India.—Three weeks of conference on Moslem-Hindu problems between Mohandas Gandhi and Mahammed Ali Jimah, head of the Moslem League, ended September 26 in the usual “failure to agree.” According to Gandhi, the result was not a complete failure but an adjournment sine die. He called for public pressure to bring about a settlement of conflicting views. The most promising recent scheme for an independent India, and the one approved by Gandhi, is for a league of semi-autonomous states after the Soviet model.