UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES
Meeting of Security Council.—Despite Soviet requests for postponement till April 10, the United Nations Security Council met in New York on March 25 and continued its sessions throughout April. On the whole, the accomplishments of the Council, though marked by heated differences, were regarded as adding strength to the United Nations, demonstrating the Council’s ability to deal with a problem involving a major power. Aside from grappling with the Soviet-Iran issue, and settling matters of procedure, the Council made some progress in other fields. The chairmanship, shifted monthly in alphabetical order among the member nations, went first to Dr. Quo Tai- chi of China, who was succeeded on April 15 by the Egyptian delegate, Hafez Afifi Pasha. It was decided that the meeting of the General Assembly on September 3 would be held in the New York City Building of the World Fair site at Flushing Meadows, Long Island, and that the temporary headquarters of the Secretariat would be shifted after August 15 to the near-by Sperry Company plant at Lake Success, Nassau County.
Soviet-Iran Dispute.—The Iranian issue was raised by the notice given by Iran, before the Council opened, that a dispute still existed and a threat to Iran resulting from the presence in her territory of Soviet troops, “contrary to the Tripartite treaty of January 29, 1942.” On March 24, the day before the Council opened, Moscow gave notice that troop withdrawals had begun, and would be completed in six weeks’ time, by May 6, “if nothing unforeseen occurs.” Though this eased the situation, the Council decided by a vote of 9 to 2 that Iran’s continued demand for consideration be granted, as a demonstration that no small nation could be denied a hearing by the unilateral action of a major power. Postponement, declared Secretary of State Byrnes, “would be a violation of the spirit of the Charter.” Thereupon the Russian delegate withdrew, declaring he was “not able to participate.” The Iranian delegate presented his reasons for bringing the matter before the Council, and the Council on March 29 sent urgent inquiries to both Moscow and Teheran requesting by April 3 information on the status of direct negotiations between the two countries and as to the existence of any secret agreement. The Soviet reply on April 3 gave a definite promise—this time with no conditions attached—- that the troops would be evacuated by May 6. This reply Was accepted and the Council’s decision was to defer further consideration until after the date set for evacuation. At this point the news was published of a Soviet-Iranian agreement (see below). The Soviet delegate, Andrei A. Gromyko, resumed his seat in the Council on April 10 after two weeks’ absence. With the news of the Moscow-Teheran settlement, most of the delegates regarded the Iran issue as safely disposed of, but Mr. Gromyko raised it again by a written note declaring that the decision to “review the situation after May 6” was “illegal and contrary to the Charter” and demanding that the entire case be stricken from the agenda. To complicate the matter further, the Iranian Government also—whether or not under Soviet pressure—sent a note stating that it was now content to have the Council drop the case; and Secretary-General Trygve Lie raised the question whether the Council could legally continue consideration of a dispute after both parties had requested its withdrawal. The right of the Council to continue consideration was subsequently supported by a vote of 7 to 3.
Soviet-Iranian Pact.—The terms of the long-delayed agreement between Iran and the Soviet Union were announced on April 7. As outlined, the agreement provided: (1) that Red troops would be evacuated from Iranian territory within a month and a half from March 24—i.e., by May 6; (2) that a Russo-Iranian oil company would be formed of which Russia for 25 years would share in the management and hold 51 per cent of the stock; (3) that the status of Azerbajan would be regarded as an “internal question” to be settled by Iran without Soviet interference. Iran on June 7 was to elect a new Majlis (Parliament), in which ratification of the oil pact would be the first consideration. It was noted that the provision for formation of an oil company was so phrased as to avoid conflict with the clause in the Constitution of Iran forbidding oil “concessions” to a foreign nation whose troops are on Iranian soil.
Military Starr Meeting.—The United Nations Military Staff Committee held its first meeting in New York on March 27, during the session of the Security Council. The committee was composed of representatives of the land, sea, and air forces of the five major powers—United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China. The discussion was described as “wholly procedural,” with no decisions as to the size or composition of forces to be contributed by each power. It was understood, however, that the proposed United States quota would be 2 to 5 divisions of ground troops, 10 to 20 heavy bomber and long-range fighter aircraft groups, and up to two fast carrier task forces. Some estimates placed the over-all international force as high as 1,000,000 men contributed by the Big Five, and as many more by the smaller powers.
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Relief Measures.—Following the appointment on March 29 of former Mayor F. H. LaGuardia of New York to succeed ex- Governor Herbert Lehman as head of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, increasing efforts were made to meet the world demand for food. During late March a special food commission of eleven nations held sessions in this country. Final allocation of food supplies was still in the hands of the Combined Food Board set up in 1942 and now composed of U. S. Secretary of Agriculture Clinton P. Anderson, Canadian Minister of Agriculture J. C. Gardiner, and M. J. Hutton, head of the British mission in this country. They described their gruesome task as that of “allocating famine” since food is inadequate for all. Ex-President Herbert Hoover, investigating conditions in Europe as head of a special Famine Emergency Commission, described conditions in Poland as probably the most serious. From Athens he stated on April 17 that a next-to-starvation diet for millions of Greeks could be avoided only by immediate diversion of 100,000 tons of cereals en route from Canada to the United Kingdom. The Argentine Government in mid- April took steps to increase grain shipments by government control of all exports and subsidies to stimulate sale of wheat now hoarded on farms for higher prices.
Foreign Ministers Meet in Paris.— Despite Soviet requests for delay, the regular quarterly meeting of the Big Four Foreign Ministers was set to meet in Paris on April 25. Their formidable task would be to clear away some of the deadlocks and disagreements which have held up the work of their deputies in London, and delayed completion of the peace treaties with Italy, Finland, Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria. Chief difficulties faced in the Italian treaty are the disposal of Italy’s African colonies, the question of turning over the Dodecanese Islands to Greece, the reparations demanded by Russia in behalf of her Balkan allies, and the disputed Italian-Yugoslav frontier. The special four-power commission sent to Trieste to investigate this last problem returned to London and on April 15 was busy preparing its “fact finding” report. As a result of earlier disorders in Trieste and concentration of Yugoslav troops in the area, Lieutenant General Mitchell on March 27 issued a statement declaring that Allied forces would maintain their present positions and would “tolerate no attempt to prejudice in any way the final disposition of the territory.”
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Relations with Argentina.—According to final results of the Argentine presidential elections, Colonel Juan Peron was swept into office for a six-year term with 216 electoral votes, a popular majority of 1,282,000 to 1,024,000 over his opponent Dr. Tamborini, a probable majority of 109 to 49 in the Chamber of Deputies, and complete control of the Senate. Perhaps in recognition of the changed constitutional status of the Peron government, Secretary of State Byrnes in a formal announcement on April 8 indicated that our government would be ready to join with Argentina in a multilateral hemisphere defense treaty, provided the Argentine government now carried out its obligation to eliminate “Axis influences” which threaten inter-American security. The State Department also secured in April the approval of Argentina for the appointment of George B. Messersmith, for the past five years Ambassador to Mexico, as the new U. S. Ambassador at Buenos Aires. However, since our policies are guided from Washington, the new appointment could not be taken as indicating a willingness to “wipe old scores off the record,” as advocated by some writers on Latin American relations.
In a reply, made public April 17, to the United States charges in its Blue Book of last February, the Argentine Foreign Minister, Juan I. Cooke, took a somewhat conciliatory tone. In the bulk of his paper he denied or rebutted the United States charges but at the end he admitted mistakes and pointed to services rendered by Argentina in support of the United Nations cause. He condemned the Blue Book as “a lamentable interference in the internal political affairs of Argentina,” but he admitted that Argentina’s policy of neutrality in World War II might have been a wrong one. “It is the duty of the strong to be tolerant of the weak,” he wrote at the end, and “the United States cannot disregard this precept.”
Views on American Policy.—High praise has been accorded the article by former Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy, in a recent issue of Life, on “The United States and the World.” A concise summary is given in the subheading: “To prevent World War III we should keep our military forces strong, work closely with Great Britain, support Nationalist China—and tell the Russians exactly where we stand.” As regards relations with the Soviet Union, Mr. Kennedy believes we should “make the solution of our difficulties with Russia second in importance only to making the United States the strongest nation in the world,” and to this end we should
(1) Announce that the U. S. considers its relations with Russia as the one remaining unsolved problem of preventing another world war.
(2) State that the U. S. will hereafter follow a policy of unequivocal frankness and clear-cut realism in its relations with Russia.
(3) Inform Russia that the U. S. can conceive of five possible positions that Russian policy might assume toward the U. S.—normal friendship and co-operation, limited co-operation, non- co-operation, potential threat, and actual aggression or threat of aggression.
(4) Inform Russia that in the first case the U. S. stands ready to co-operate fully with Russia and to generously assist in her economic reconstruction. In the second case the measure of U. S. co-operation and assistance will be the degree of Russian co-operation. In the third case the U. S. will not co-operate with Russia. In the fourth case we shall be forced to take appropriate action concerning our national security and the world-wide security position. In the fifth case we would declare war.
(5) In the conduct of our relations with Russia, classify all problems which arise as to these five cases and determine thereby the basis of our course of action.
(6) As regards matters falling in cases two or three, inform Russia that while the U. S. will not consider the use of force, it will form its own opinions of the extent of Russia’s lack of co-operation and will act accordingly.
(7) As regards matters falling in cases four or five, inform Russia that if she is suspected of turning from non-co-operation to aggression she will be taking the surest way to consolidate the Western World against her.
WESTERN EUROPE
British Empire Problems.—Developments in March and April indicated a genuine effort of the British Labor government to settle problems in India, in Egypt, in the Levant, and in other sore spots of the far-flung empire. In India a commission, composed of the Secretary for India Lord Pethick-Lawrence, First Lord of the Admiralty A. V. Alexander, and Sir Stafford Cripps, assembled in the council chamber of the vice regal palace at New Delhi to hear the views of Indian leaders. Progress, if any, was not revealed. Chief obstacle to a new deal for India appeared to be the consistent opposition of the Moslem League to any plan for either independence or autonomy which did not provide for a separate Moslem state of Pakistan.
Progress toward a revision of the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty of alliance appeared more assured when Foreign Minister Bevin announced in Parliament on April 2 that he intended to head a delegation to Cairo for the final negotiations. Meanwhile, a strong British commission, including the British naval, army, and air commanders in the Middle East, were already engaged in discussions in the Egyptian capital.
With the Arab state of Trans-Jordan, London announced at the close of March a new treaty granting “full independence.” British forces, however, are to remain in the former mandate, and the Emir also guarantees the security of roads, air lines, pipe lines, and other communications through his country. The treaty provides for “mutual support” in hostilities with any third power as a measure of “collective self-defense.”
Anti-Franco Moves.—On April 17, following up his earlier notification, the Polish delegate on the Security Council proposed that all members of the United Nations break diplomatic relations with the Franco Government in Spain. He based his proposal on four charges: (1) that the Franco regime had been put into power with the aid of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy against the will of the Spanish people, (2) that the Franco Government had been an active partner in the Axis war, (3) that it was now causing international friction by massing troops on the French frontier and forcing France to close the frontier, (4) that it had allowed Spanish territory to become a refuge for Germans who were now engaged in activities harmful to the cause of peace. The Polish proposal was supported by France and Mexico but opposed by the Netherlands delegate, who insisted that Spain constituted no real menace and that his own government had no desire to break off either diplomatic or economic relations. The United States and Britain, though opposed to the Franco set-up, took the view that it did not constitute a menace to international peace. While opposed to fascism in Spain, they were not eager to see it supplanted by a strongly leftist or communist control.
Prior to the Polish attack, the Spanish Government in late March had issued a statement calling attention to conditions on the French border and warning that it would not hold itself accountable for the consequences of “French aggression.” Spain also proposed in April that a commission of “friendly powers” among the United Nations —i.e., powers still maintaining diplomatic relations with Spain—be appointed to visit the country and investigate charges that German scientists were at work on atomic bombs. There appeared slight prospect that this invitation would be accepted. France had earlier suggested that the Spanish question be taken up at the Foreign Ministers’ conference in Paris late in April, but both the United States and Great Britain expressed a preference for discussions “through normal diplomatic channels,” thus avoiding Soviet participation in a Western European issue.
Fate of Ruhr and Rhineland.—Anglo- American plans for restoring the German economic system on a working basis have been persistently blocked by the unwillingness of France to permit any political hookup between a central German administration and the industrial Ruhr region, the Saar Basin, and other territory west of the Rhine. This was the policy of General de Gaulle and has since been supported by Foreign Minister Bidault. Evidence of a less intransigent attitude was seen in a speech of President Gouin at Strassburg in which he opposed “annexations whether brutal or disguised” and seemed willing to accept some form of international (rather than French) authority both for the Ruhr and for the territories west of the Rhine. The French Ministry, however, later came out strongly in support of the Bidault-de Gaulle policy.
Soviet Governmental Shifts.—During the spring meeting of the all-Russian Parliament, several minor changes in the Soviet governmental setup were announced. Soviet Commissars will hereafter be given the western title of “Ministers” and Stalin as head of the ministry will accept the title of “Premier.” After 27 years in office Kalinin resigned as President of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet and was succeeded by the former Vice-President, Nikolai Mikhailovich Shvernig. Kalinin was regarded as the “little father” of the peasants, whereas Shvernig’s associations have been with the workers and Trade Unions. The probable successor to Shvernig as Vice-President is Kuznetzov, who formerly studied at Carnegie Tech, worked in a Ford plant, and is an admirer of American industrial methods.
BALKANS AND NEAR EAST
Capture of Mikhailovitch.—Late in March the Yugoslav Government announced the capture on March 2 of General Draja Mikhailovitch, Minister of War under King Peter and leader of the Serbian factions opposed to Tito. Yugoslav dispatches stated that he was to undergo “three months of questioning” before his trial for collaboration with the enemy and atrocities. A United States note in early April requested that American officers be permitted to testify at his trial, since he had once led “important resistance forces” and had been instrumental in rescuing American airmen. Serb leaders in London also appealed to the Security Council, citing the General’s services and insisting that a fair trial could not be expected from the Tito regime.
Bulgaria Ministry Revamped.—Premier Kimon Georgiev of Bulgaria announced in late March another reorganization of his left-wing Fatherland Front coalition government, resulting in a shift of six ministers. No members of the opposition parties were included, on the grounds that the terms they demanded for participation were not justified by the Moscow agreement of last December. Whether or not the reorganization was expected to meet Anglo-American demands for a “broadening” of the Sofia Government, it was not so regarded in either Washington or London. London expressed the view that it did not end the impasse and in no way justified recognition.
In early April England also announced that, because of the hostile attitude of the leftist government in Albania, it had been decided to delay diplomatic recognition. Obstacles had been placed in the way of the British military mission, which had been restricted to Tirana, and a British war graves commission had been expelled from the country. In the circumstances, British support for Albania’s entry into the United Nations could hardly be expected.
Conservatives Win in Greece.—The Greek parliamentary elections, held as scheduled on March 31, resulted in a decided majority for the so-called Populist (Royalist) party, which was expected to have about 200 out of 357 seats in the new chamber. According to early results, the Populists polled nearly 600,000 votes; the National bloc of moderate republicans, 345,000; and Liberals, 142,000. Despite Leftist abstention from voting, over 65 per cent of the electorate cast their votes, and it was estimated that not more than one-fourth of the electorate abstained for party reasons. The Allied (Ameri- can-French-British) Commission for Observing the Greek Election announced on April 11 that conditions were “peaceful and orderly,” and that the results were a “free and valid verdict of the Greek people.” Largely as a result of British and other Allied urging, the Greek Regent, Archbishop Damiskinos, consented to remain in office after the election. A temporary cabinet was organized under Panayotis Poulitsas. Two weeks later, on April 17, the Populists chose former Foreign Minister Constantin Tsaldaris as head of their party and he proceeded to organize a predominantly rightist and royalist ministry. Parliament was to meet in early May, and it appeared likely that, barring further revolutionary disturbances, a plebicite on the return of King George II might be held without the two-year delay favored by the British.
FAR EAST
Strife in Manchuria.—As Russian forces moved northward in Manchuria during April, increasing conflict developed between loosely organized Communist forces and the advancing Nationalist Chinese troops. General Chou En-lai, leader of the Communist delegation at Chungking, admitted that in Manchuria renewed civil warfare was in full swing. From the Manchurian capital at Changchun, American correspondents reported that after the Russian evacuation Communists had occupied the airfields and railway communications and by April '.7 had taken over most of the city. The Nationalist garrison still held out but was estimated at not over 5,000 as opposed to 30,000 Communists. Estimates of Communist military strength in all Manchuria ran to over 200,000. Prospects of a settlement appeared to depend largely on the influence of General Marshall, the American Ambassador, who returned from Washington to Chungking in mid-April and thence flew directly to Manchuria. The Russian evacuation was to be completed by the end of the month. Warfare in Manchuria tended to upset negotiations at Chungking for setting up a provisional coalition government, and might delay the first meeting of the Constituent Assembly set for May 5.
Japanese Election.—The Japanese parliamentary election held on April 10, the first free election in Japan since 1932, resulted in an unexpectedly large vote of both men and women, under practically universal suffrage. Victory went overwhelmingly to the conservative parties, with indications that in the new Chamber of 466 members, 139 seats would go to the Liberals, 91 to the Progressives, 84 to the Independents (mostly conservatives), and 84 to the Social Democrats, with the rest to minor parties. Chief candidates to head the new government were the present Premier, Baron Shidehara, and the leader of the Liberals, Ichiro Hatoyoma. Hatoyama, however, had a questionable past record showing admiration of fascist leaders and acceptance of authoritarian ideas.
The first task of the New Parliament will be to pass on the new Constitution, a draft of which, approved by General MacArthur, was published in early March. As it stands, it is a highly democratic document, virtually depriving the Emperor of political power. War is “forever renounced as a means of dealing with foreign nations,” and no provision is made for the maintenance of land, sea, or air forces.
Terms to Java.—At the close of March the negotiations of Dutch, British, and Indonesian leaders at Batavia, Java, had come so close to final agreement that “only loose ends remained to be tied up.” Sir Archibald Kerr, the special British envoy, left early in April and did not expect to return to Java before taking up his new duties in May as Ambassador to the United States. Final discussions between the Netherlands and Indonesian representatives were transferred to The Hague. It was generally believed that the terms would provide virtual autonomy for Indonesia, with continued status within the Dutch Realm.