UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
American Security Parley.—Early in January, the Mexican Government issued invitations to a first “Inter American Conference of United and Associated Nations” to be held at Mexico City. The date set was February 15, though there was some possibility of postponement to permit further preparation by the nations invited. The conference was intended primarily to give the Latin American republics an opportunity to present their views on problems of post-war security and other matters relating especially to the Western Hemisphere. A tentative agenda prepared by the State Department in Washington was submitted to the participating nations. The United States delegation was to be headed by Secretary of State Stettinius, with Nelson Rockefeller, Assistant Secretary for American affairs, as his chief aid. It was noted that the invitation came fittingly from Mexico, since Foreign Minister Padilla is the only one still in office of the three American diplomats, including ex-Secretary Hull and ex-Foreign Minister Aranha of Brazil, who were chiefly instrumental in bringing about a united hemisphere front against the Axis.
Argentina Stands Aloof.—On January 10 the Argentine Government in a letter to the Governing Board of the Pan American Union announced its decision to abstain from further participation in meetings of the Union so long as that organization “continued to disregard Argentine rights and to alter its procedure of consultation.” This followed a meeting of the Governing Board of the Union two days earlier at which it was decided to “defer indefinitely” any action on Argentina’s request of last October for a meeting of foreign ministers to consider “Argentina’s alleged failure to meet her obligations.” Prior to this action and prior also to Argentina’s withdrawal, Secretary Stettinius had suggested in a letter to the Board that consideration of Argentina’s request be left until the prospective conference at Mexico City in February. It was noted that Argentina’s suspension of attendance at meetings of the Union did not constitute a complete withdrawal or break in membership.
Oil Pact Revision.—In early January President Roosevelt requested that the Anglo-American Oil Agreement, which had been pigeonholed by the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, should be returned to the State Department for possible revision. The agreement had originally been intended as a basis or starting point for a pact among all the chief oil producing nations. It had been criticized by American oil producers for its alleged ambiguity and also for certain restrictions regarded as injurious to the American industry, whereas the State Department defended it as in line with a policy of “broad international understandings to promote sound trade,” preventing friction over problems of foreign oil and assuring to all an adequate supply. The President’s action gave the agreement a new lease of life.
Mission to Finland.—The Washington State Department on January 12 announced the appointment of a new mission to Finland, to “study conditions” and presumably to pave the way for a renewal of diplomatic relations. As head of the mission the Department named Maxwell M. Hamilton, a career diplomat who will have the rank of Minister and the title of “United States Representative in Finland.” Similar representatives are already acting in Rumania, Bulgaria, and other former satellite or occupied states. Formal renewal of relations with Finland will probably be arranged in agreement with Britain and the Soviet Union. Finland’s $300,000,000 indemnity to Russia is to be paid in goods, chiefly machinery, shipping, timber, paper and cellulose products, over a period of six years.
Views on Foreign Policy.—Among the articles in the January Foreign Affairs, the following are noted as of chief naval and diplomatic interest:
“America at War: The End in Sight,” by Hanson W. Baldwin, deals chiefly with the war in the Pacific, the tough fighting at Peleliu, the heavy carrier strikes, the invasion of Leyte, and the Second Battle of the Philippine Sea. The leaving of San Bernardino Strait uncovered is spoken of as an error which might have had serious consequences, due perhaps to “the old trouble— lack of clear-cut, unified command.” Two pages cover the November-December fighting in Europe.
“Bretton Woods and International Cooperation,” by Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. A well reasoned argument for ratification of the economic pact as essential to an effective plan for world security. Much the same purpose is served by another article on “The Monetary Fund,” by H. D. White, Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury.
“Diplomacy Old and New,” by Andre Geroud (Pertinax). A vigorous defense of the “old” system of alliances as a more trustworthy support for a peace structure than the new diplomacy, which admittedly broke down badly in the decades after the First World War.
Other articles include “The Vatican’s Position in Europe,” by Luigi Sturzo; “China’s Financial Problems,” by H. H. Kung; “The Court as an Organ of the United Nations,” by Philip C. Jessup; “British Reconversion and Trade,” by W. M. Dacey; “Argentina, the Recalcitrant American State,” by Frank Tannenbaum; “The Reconstruction of European Agriculture,” by Karl Brandt; “Shanghai and Hong Kong: A British View,” by H. G. W. Woodhead; “Race Relations in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands,” by Eric Williams; “The Gandhi-Jinnah Conversations,” by Sir Frederick Puckle; and “Phases in Swedish Neutrality,” by Joachim Joesten.
UNITED NATION PROBLEMS
“Big Three” Conference.—From official statements in January it appeared fairly certain that the long delayed meeting of President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, and Premier Stalin would take place within a month’s time, though neither the date nor the place could be indicated beforehand. Direct contacts of the three chiefs of state appeared increasingly necessary in view of the many difficult problems that have arisen especially in the liberated states of Europe—in Greece, in Poland, in Yugoslavia, and elsewhere. There are also problems in connection with the plan for post-war security not wholly agreed upon at Dumbarton Oaks.
France Joins United Nations.—In a formal ceremony at Washington the French Government on January 1 signed the United Nations Joint Declaration, thus taking the final step toward full partnership in the anti- Axis war. President Roosevelt’s congratulatory message greeted France as “a strong Ally—once more in the first rank of the free and peace-loving nations of the world.” The signature, affixed by the new French Ambassador Henri Bonnet, was on the anniversary of the original signing three years ago. Significant of the now fully recognized status of France was the attendance of General de Gaulle for the first time at a conference of General Eisenhower and other Allied military leaders held at the Allied Headquarters in Paris two days later. At a press conference in Washington on January 5 Ambassador Bonnet spoke of the prospects of securing supplies and equipment for an enlarged French army, which the French would like to run up to ten or fifteen divisions, but which difficulties of supply and transport may limit for the present to not more than five. He stated also that arrangements were under way for the unblocking of the frozen gold holdings of France in this country. Of the economic recovery of France he gave a fairly encouraging picture. Two- thirds of the roadbeds of French railways are in condition for use, though only one-third of the locomotives in full repair. Waterways are 90 per cent available. Coal production has gone up from 1,000,000 tons in September to 2,500,000 tons in January, and electric production is nearly up to normal.
Lublin Poles Recognized.—At the end of December the Polish National Council at Lublin carried out its previously announced intention to break off all dealings with the Government in Exile in England and proclaim its own organization as a Polish Provisional Government. Boleslaw Blerut, former President of the Council, became Provisional President in the new setup, and Edward B. Osubka-Morawski was named as Premier and Foreign Minister. The Soviet Union gave immediate recognition to the new regime, though it was understood that Britain and the United States had sought to delay action by Moscow until a joint policy could be agreed upon. France, without extending formal recognition, had already sent a representative to Lublin. Secretary of State Stettinius indicated that the United States, like Britain, would for the present continue to deal with the Polish Government in Exile. Polish officials in London described the Lublinites as “usurpers” and even as “Red Quislings,” but it appeared altogether likely as the Soviet armies swept over Poland, that the Moscow-recognized regime would stand. From Lublin came indications that the new Government would seek a friendly understanding with both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and that as a token of good will, the rich coal mining district of Teschen would be returned to the Czechs. It had been seized by the Poles during the post-Munich upset in October, 1938.
BALKANS AND NEAR EAST
Truce in Greece.—On January 11 British military authorities in Athens and leaders of the Greek ELAS forces signed a truce which went into effect on January 15, bringing to an end the six-week-old Greek civil war. Under the terms of the truce, there was to be a general exchange of military prisoners, and British civilians were also to be released, but despite objections of the Greek Government the EAM was to retain possession of Greek civilian “hostages,” including women and children, until a more definitive settlement should be reached. The strife in Greece had started on December 3 when the EAM liberation forces refused to disband and lay down their arms. The ensuing conflict, in which British troops were employed to support the Government, resulted in damage in Athens alone estimated at $200,000,000, a check on all relief measures for the civil population, and over 2,000 casualties among the British troops engaged. Following the truce, the EAM forces were given three days in which to retire into northern Greece behind a line drawn from the Gulf of Corinth to the east coast about 130 miles north of Athens. Thus they still occupied about two-thirds of the country.
The first vigorous moves toward ending the Greek conflict came as a sequel of the visit to Athens of Prime Minister Churchill, Foreign Minister Anthony Eden, and Field Marshal Alexander, and their conference there, December 26, with Greek leaders on both sides. After subsequent conferences among the Greeks themselves, agreement was reached on at least one point, that for the present Archbishop Damaskinos, highly respected head of the Greek Church, should serve as regent, pending a later decision as to the continuation of the monarchy. This arrangement was accepted by King George in London, after its presentation to him by the returning British Ministers, and on December 30 he issued a proclamation appointing the new regent and expressing his willingness to let the question of a monarchy be settled by popular vote.
The Papandreau Ministry in Athens thereupon resigned according to arrangement, and a new Government was organized by General Nicholas Plastiras, 62 years of age, a leader in the overthrow of King Constantine in 1922, but regarded as a moderate except in his opposition to the monarchy. In his 9-man Cabinet the General took over the four portfolios of War, Navy, Air, and Merchant Marine. Except for the Foreign Minister, regarded as a Leftist, the other members of the ministry were described as “Liberals of a Rightist trend.” For the time being, no EAM representatives were included. As indicated above, the fighting did not actually cease until the truce of January 15, and even this gave no great assurance that the bitter factional strife would not break out anew.
Turkey Breaks with Japan.—Acting in response to representations from Britain and the United States, the Turkish Government on January 6 broke off diplomatic relations with Japan. Evidently the chief Allied gain from the rupture would be in depriving Germany of a listening post and spy center in the Near East. Since the Germans were ousted from Turkey last August, these activities had been largely taken over by the Japanese, who did their best to maintain the former Nazi contacts in Iran, Iraq, Palestine, and elsewhere in the Levant. Turkish officials described the break as “a new link in our policy of assistance to the Allied cause.”
On January 15 it was announced that Edwin C. Wilson had been named as the new United States Ambassador to Turkey. Mr. Wilson, an experienced career diplomat, succeeds former Ambassador Laurence A. Steinhardt, who was recently transferred to London as representative to the Czechoslovak Government in Exile.
Soviet Control in Rumania.—At the end of December it was stated that both the United States and British Governments had requested explanations from Russia regarding the removal of certain equipment from Rumanian oil fields. The chief difficulty arose from the fact that American and British representatives on the Allied Control Commission at Bucharest had not been permitted to visit the oil fields or share in decisions regarding the disposal of equipment. Soviet authorities, however, had given assurances that Anglo-American financial interests would be protected and that the equipment taken to Russia would not lessen the contribution of the Rumanian fields to the Allied war effort. As is well known, the pre-war development of Rumanian oil resources was accomplished largely by foreign capital, the investment of American controlled companies being estimated at about 15 per cent, British, Dutch, and French at 50 per cent, and German at 23 per cent.
Bulgarian War Guilt Trials.—Trials of pro-Axis politicians and other wartime offenders in Bulgaria opened in the Sofia People’s Court in the second week of January. Among those charged with atrocities, collaboration with the Axis, delaying the peace, and similar offenses were numerous political leaders, including the regents appointed in September, 1943, after the death of King Boris. As one of the regents, the King’s brother Prince Cyril defended his policy by declaring that the country had been completely under Nazi control. He added his “conviction” that King Boris had been poisoned during his last visit to Hitler’s headquarters, which shortly preceded his death.
While the war trials sufficiently indicate the strongly leftist trend of the present Bulgarian Government, there have nevertheless been complaints from Sofia regarding Soviet interference in strictly internal Bulgarian affairs, particularly in the reappointment of certain non-communist army officers. It is claimed that these have been opposed by the Soviet Occupation Authorities, in violation of Foreign Minister Molotoff’s pledges at the time of the armistice that Bulgaria would remain “a democratic country, without suffering interference in her internal activities.”
King Peter Blocks Regency.—In a statement issued on January 11, evidently without the approval of the Subasitch Cabinet and without the benefit of British or American counsel, King Peter of Yugoslavia raised vigorous objections to the recent collaboration plan of government for his country worked out by Marshal Tito and Premier Subasitch. According to the King, the plan proposed a transfer of power “to a single political group rather than a true allparty or coalition government.” He objected both to the form of the regency and to the grant of unrestricted legislative power to the “Anti-Fascist Council of National Liberation,” prior to the election of a Constituent Assembly. Meeting in London on the following day, the Yugoslav Cabinet took no action, feeling that a solution could be found for the difficulties raised. It was pointed out that the King’s message must be regarded as invalid, if not unconstitutional, since it was not approved or countersigned by a Cabinet member.
Anglo-Ethiopian Pact.—It was announced in January that Britain and Ethiopia had recently concluded a new two-year agreement which considerably reduces British wartime supervision of Ethiopian affairs. The terms of the agreement provide for: (1) removal of British garrisons, except along the border of British Somaliland where there is still unrest among the native tribes; (2) opening of Ethiopian air fields, hitherto restricted to British use, to the aircraft of all the Allied powers; (3) operation by the Ethiopian Government of that section of the Addis Ababa-Djibuti Railway which lies within Ethiopian territory. King Haile Selassie may now also choose his foreign advisers according to his own wish.
FAR EAST
Democratic China Pledged.—Undoubtedly the most significant passage in Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s New Year message to the Chinese people was his pledge that within the year, whether or not the war came to an end, a People’s Congress would be called to adopt a Constitution. The message read in part:
I am ready immediately to propose to the central executive committee of the Kuomintang [Government party] that, as soon as the military situation has become so stabilized as to enable us to launch a counteroffensive with greater assurance of victory, we should convene a Peoples’ Congress to adopt a constitution which would enable the Kuomintang to transfer the power of government to the people.
Therefore we must in this year, 1945, employ our entire strength to beat back the enemy and also to introduce a constitutional government with the entire nation solidly bound together.
Unrest in Japan.—Domei dispatches from Japan in mid-January admitted that, as a result of military reverses, there was an increased “demand in the nation for a stronger internal structure to meet the growing seriousness of the war.” More specifically, there appeared prospects of another ministerial organization ending the “compromise cabinet” of General Koiso. A special cabinet meeting was scheduled for January 15, and the Diet was to renew its sessions on January 21.
Help of Chinese Communists.—An editorial in the magazine Amerasia for December 13 insists not only that American influence should do its utmost to work out a compromise agreement between Chungking and the Yinan regime of so-called Chinese Communists, but also that co-operation with the latter is essential to “the land offensive that American leaders have declared to be essential to Japan’s defeat.” The editorial reads in part:
The fact remains that as a result of Japan’s successful drive to cut China in two, the Chungking Government has no control over the coastal areas. In those areas, the only Chinese forces that could co-operate with American troops landing on the coast are the guerrilla and partisan units. Thus it seems clear that in addition to giving all possible aid to China’s regular armies, American policy for reasons of military necessity must include measures to establish close working relations with the Eighth Route Army and its partisan supporters.
In this connection, the following excerpts from an American correspondent’s interview with General Chu Teh, commander of the Eighth Route Army, in June, 1944, are of very pertinent interest. General Chu declared, in part, that “we hold long coastlines in Shantung and Kiangsu, where former pirates have joined us. Co-operation with Allied airmen can be arranged. We could coordinate with an Allied offensive by cutting all railways leading south from North China. If Chiang Kai-shek would allow it, we could easily penetrate south into Kiangsi, Hunan, Fukien, Chekiang, and Kwangsi. These are our old bases in which we are experienced and are known. We could mobilize the people in a very short time.... We would need ammunition.”
As far as American policy is concerned, it need not be a question of aiding the Chinese guerrillas as against the Kuomintang, or of helping the Kuomintang to become strong enough to wipe out the guerrillas. Rather, our aim must be to strengthen all sections of China’s fighting forces, and do everything possible to encourage more effective and unified Chinese participation in the war by both military and economic cooperation with the Chungking Government and with the guerrilla and partisan forces. This is essential if we are to avoid the danger of needlessly prolonging the war in the Pacific.
Revamping for Japan.—In an article on “Japan as a Political Organism,” in Pacific Affairs for January, Mr. T. H. Bisson, the well-known authority on the Far East, lays down and discusses a sweeping program of government reorganization in Japan which must follow an Allied victory. The Emperor, he writes, must be eliminated as “the key stone of the state structure.” Other essential steps are thus outlined:
Before the occupation force leaves Japan, it should have enforced the following measures: (1) Destruction of military, naval, and air armaments. (2) Conversion of munitions factories to civilian production, so far as possible; otherwise destruction. (3) Payment of reparations to China consisting of industrial equipment produced in Japan, with raw materials supplied by China. (4) Establishment of import controls to guarantee continued enforcement of steps (2) and (3). (5) Abolition of the Army and Navy, including inter alia the conscription system. (6) Punishment of war criminals, including the Emperor; exile or imprisonment of the middle and higher officers. (7) Dissolution of the Ex-Servicemen’s Association and of the secret societies; punishment of leaders of the secret societies guilty of criminal acts. (8) Dissolution of the Tokkoka (secret police) and the Kempeitai (army gendarmerie) and punishment of officials guilty of criminal acts. (9) Preliminary reorganization of the police system, with right of habeas corpus guaranteed. (10) Preliminary reorganization of the personnel and curricula of the education system. (11) Establishment of a free press and opening of Japan to unrestricted news, cable, telephone, and radio contact with the outside world. (12) Recommendation of certain additional measures in so far as these have not been already accomplished (to be left for Japanese implementation).