PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE
Conference Speed-up.—Toward the close of September the ministers of the four major powers, meeting separately on the 24th, agreed that work of the general conference must be speeded up in order to bring it to an end by Oct. 15, and leave a breathing space before the opening of the United Nations Assembly at New York set for Oct. 23. Speeches were to be cut short, hopeless proposals discarded, and the final reports of all commissions ready for submission at plenary sessions by Oct. 5. After 48 days the conference had come to a decision on only 69 of the 223 clauses of the five peace treaties. Still, consideration of the treaty for Finland was practically completed, the political and military aspects of the Bulgarian treaty had been acted upon, and agreement had been reached on the military clauses of the Italian treaty. This included acceptance of the Big Four plan for reduction of the Italian Navy to two battleships, four cruisers, four destroyers, sixteen torpedo-boats, and twenty corvettes. For both Italy and Rumania the liability for loss or damage of Allied property was fixed at 75 per cent, though the United States had favored reduction to 25 per cent. Agreement on the government of Trieste still hung fire, with Yugoslavia threatening refusal to sign the Italian treaty if its terms did not meet her demands. On this issue United States delegate Tom Connally insisted that in the interests of world peace Trieste must be a genuine free state, absolutely outside either Italian or Yugoslav control.
UNITED NATIONS ACTIVITIES
Decisions of Security Council.—Discussions in the Security Council during September were marked by continued sharp division between the Soviet bloc, limited generally to Russia and Poland, and the nine other nations represented. It was on these lines that the Ukrainian charges against Greece were thrown out. Similarly, by a vote of 7-2, Egypt and France abstaining, the Council refused even to place on the agenda the Soviet resolution that the United States and Britain be required to report on troops and bases maintained in China, Greece, and other non-enemy countries. Though the complaint mentioned the presence of U. S. forces in Brazil (a few technical forces) and China, the representatives of both these nations voted against the resolution.
In the Economic and Social Council of 18 members the Soviet delegation vetoed a plan, prepared by a United Nations committee in London, for co-ordinating commissions to deal with manpower, waterpower, trade, and other economic problems throughout Europe. The Russian objection was that the plan was grandiose and that treatment of the Continent as an economic unit was unfeasible. Participation of the United States was objected to, though the American delegate, John G. Winant, pointed out that the United States was one of the occupying powers in Europe, and that American financial aid was an essential element in rehabilitation.
Action on Greek Issue.—The Security Council, after twelve sessions devoted to the matter, decided on Sept. 20 by a vote of 9-2 to drop the Ukrainian charges that the Government of Greece was engaged in activities threatening peace. An American proposal for a general investigation of conditions on the Greek frontier was killed by a veto of the Soviet delegate. The general sentiment in the Council in dropping the Ukrainian charges was that they had little or no foundation and were intended chiefly for propaganda, and that in the Greek disturbances foreign nations were involved.
Atomic Control Progress.—Following Secretary Wallace’s speech criticising American foreign policy, Mr. Bernard M. Baruch, U. S. representative on the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission, made an authorized statement that the American program for atomic energy stood in no way changed. During September the only notable progress in the commission was the adoption of a report by a sub-commission of 12 scientific experts showing at what stages in the production of atomic energy there was danger of its diversion to war use. This finally gained Soviet approval, and therewith unanimous adoption, though the Soviet assent was hedged by the qualification that the conclusions were “hypothetical and conditional.”
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Clash on Foreign Policy.—A temporary weakening but at the same time a sharper definition and clarification of American foreign policy, particularly toward the Soviet Union, resulted from the speech of Secretary of Commerce Henry A. Wallace to leftist groups in New York on Sept. 9. The speech favored a policy of conciliation or even appeasement with Russia. It had received the President’s sanction, though later the President said he had approved the Secretary’s right to make the speech, rather than its contents. The speech had not been seen by the State Department. It raised a storm of criticism, as in opposition to the firm policy adopted by Secretary Byrnes at Paris, with the approval of the President and Cabinet and much assurance of bipartisan support. President Truman at first announced that Mr. Wallace would remain in the cabinet on his promise to refrain from comment on foreign policy till Oct. 15, but on Sept. 20 the President requested his resignation. He was succeeded by W. Averill Harriman, former Ambassador to Moscow. The following outline, from the N. Y. Times of Sept. 21, gives a sufficient indication of the contents of the speech.
(1) Mr. Wallace said the United States should not pursue a harsh policy toward Russia, for “the tougher we get, the tougher the Russians will get.” Mr. Byrnes’ policy has never been officially described as “tough,” but he has resisted Russian demands in nearly every quarter of the globe.
(2) The United States, Mr. Wallace said, should not interfere politically in the Balkans, adding, “We have no more business in the political affairs of eastern Europe than Russia has in the political affairs of Latin America, western Europe or the United States.” Mr. Byrnes has fought for a greater measure of political democracy throughout the Balkans, especially in Russian-dominated Rumania and Bulgaria.
(3) Mr. Wallace said British imperial interests should not control American foreign policy. “To make Britain the key to our foreign policy would in my opinion, be the height of folly,” he asserted. In Mr. Byrnes’ view, British and American interests have been coincidental in most spheres where conflict has arisen with the Russians.
(4) Mr. Wallace contended that American post-war expenditures for armaments and “the effort to secure air bases spread over half the globe” frighten the Russians and “must make it look to the rest of the world as if we were only paying lip service to peace.” Mr. Byrnes has apparently been unwilling to risk unilateral disarmament or weakening of American defenses in the present situation.
(5) American plans for control of the atom are “one-sided” and “not workable,” Mr. Wallace said, observing that “insistence on our part that the game must be played our way will only lead to a deadlock.” Mr. Byrnes and the State Department are solidly behind the Baruch plan which Mr. Wallace was specifically attacking.
American Policy Moves.—Developments in United States foreign relations during September included the following:
Proposals to Iceland. In September the State Department proposed to the government of Iceland a plan to withdraw naval and military personnel from Icelandic bases within a period of 180 days. The United States would retain the right to use only the Keflavik airfield, manned by civilian personnel, until the end of the occupation of Germany. Although the proposal was approved by the Reykjavik Government, it met opposition from Leftists in the Althing, or Icelandic Parliament.
Trade Charier Proposals. On Sept. 19 the State Department made public a proposed code for the development of international commerce. The code was to be discussed next spring at a commission representing 19 nations in London, and later at an international trade conference planned for next year. The proposals call for machinery to expand the production, exchange, and consumption of goods; and to eliminate tariffs and discriminatory treatment by cartels, quotas, embargoes, and similar restrictions. They were so drawn as to accommodate the Russian state trading system.
Bases in the Arctic. According to an announcement of the Canadian Government, Churchill, Manitoba, has been selected as an experiment station for military equipment. The big airfield at Churchill, with scattered weather stations through the North, was recommended by the joint U. S.-Canada Permanent Defense Board. Canada, however, will own and man the station, with United States military personnel present only as observers.
Aid for Hungary. In September the State Department sent another note to Moscow calling for immediate joint aid for Hungary, as promised to former satellites of Germany in the Yalta Agreement. The note pointed out that the United States has already returned frozen gold to Hungary valued at $32,000,000 and has extended a credit of $15,000,000, whereas Soviet dealing with Hungary thus far has taken the form chiefly of requisitions and removals. At Yalta the Allied powers promised “to concert. . . policies ... to solve pressing political and economic problems” of the former Axis satellites.
Friction with Yugoslavs. During September difficulties with Yugoslavia continued to occupy the State Department. The Tito Government, while recognizing the justice of demands for indemnity for the death of American fliers, was inclined to haggle over the $400,000 called for and to deny responsibility for destruction of the planes. It also made protests over “rough treatment” of Yugoslav military personnel arrested in the Trieste area, a charge which, after investigation,was declared “false and exaggerated.” The United States on its part raised objections to the closing on Sept. 26 of the U. S. Information Service at Belgrade for alleged “anti-Yugoslav activities.” This action was described by Acting Secretary Clayton as a denial to the Yugoslav people of a “basic right” to a true picture of world affairs.
Brazil’s New Constitution.—The Brazilian National Assembly on Sept. 17 approved a new Constitution returning the nation to a regular democratic form of government. The chief feature of the new charter is the restoration of states’ rights, largely abolished under the Vargas rule. The new fundamental law also favors “social justice” for the working class and state control of industries, limited only by the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution. Further, the State may outlaw any party or association whose policies are contrary to “a democratic regime based on plurality of parties and on the guarantee of fundamental human rights.”
Anglo-Argentine Trade Pact.—Britain in September signed a trade accord with Argentina providing for gradual retirement of British capital investments in Argentina and for increased meat shipments to England at a 7 ½ per cent increase in price. President Peron boasted that by the end of his term all foreign capital control in the country would be ended. On Argentine sterling credits in England, the agreement called for a small British interest payment of half of one per cent.
BRITISH EMPIRE
Palestine Conference Stalled.—The London conference in Palestine, opening in early September, developed into talks between the British and representatives of seven Arab states of the Moslem League. Arabs from Palestine refused to attend without an invitation to their leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Jewish representatives also decided to remain absent while awaiting developments. The British plan for a federal state received scant attention. Fuller study was given to a fairly reasonable Arab proposal for an independent state of Palestine in which the Jews—numbering about one-third of the total population—would be given a share in the government and guaranteed minority rights. At the close of September the Zionists, adopting a less belligerent attitude, appeared inclined to enter the conference and discuss some “reasonable” form of partition, though it was clear that the Arabs would insist on an undivided state. In Palestine the Jewish Agency and the National Council of Palestine Jews took a strong official stand against extremist violence, which had served chiefly to stiffen British resistance, halt admissions of refugees, and alienate sympathy abroad.
Anglo-Egyptian Stalemate.—Final rejection by Egypt of the British terms for a new Anglo-Egyptian treaty came on Sept. 25. Chief stumbling blocks were the Egyptian demand for evacuation of British forces in one year rather than three; the unwillingness of the Egyptians to give assurance of military aid throughout the Middle East rather than solely when their own borders were threatened; and finally the British insistence on a continued condominium in the Sudan. A possible outcome appeared to be the resignation of Premier Ismail Sidky’s cabinet and the formation of a new coalition government including the Wafdists. Upon the evacuation of Egypt, Cyprus will become the central British naval and air base for defense of Suez and oil interests in the Middle East. On defenses in this area the Journal of the United Service Institution for August contained the following:
Clearly Egypt is not and is never likely to be strong enough by herself to defend this zone against serious attack; the crux of the matter is, therefore, can we be certain that in all circumstances this vital route will be available to us unless British forces are at all times within striking distance to defend it? As a corollary, the question arises, where must these forces be stationed?
British Quit Java.—It was announced in September that the evacuation of the 20,000 British troops in the Netherlands East Indies would be completed by Nov. 15. London stated that the objectives of evacuating Allied prisoners and disarming Japanese forces had been accomplished and that the withdrawal would be carried out regardless of the state of Dutch-Indonesian negotiations. Meantime Netherlands forces in the islands have been increased, with more favorable prospects for acceptance by native leaders of the Dutch proposals for self-rule within a Netherlands Imperial Union.
EUROPE AND MIDDLE EAST
French Constitution Making.—The new Constitution for France was approved by the French Assembly on Sept. 29 by a vote of 440 to 106, having the support of all three major parties, the Popular Republicans, Socialists, and Communists. Prospects of real opposition were evident, however, when General de Gaulle emerged from retirement to declare that the new charter was little better than the one rejected last May, that it gave undue control to the elective assembly and so limited the powers of the President as to leave him “no capacity to do anything in any sphere.” There were indications that the Gaullist Union of the General’s followers might organize anti-leftist elements into a new opposition party, fighting for a more “balanced” Constitution in line with General de Gaulle’s idea of a strong executive power. The new Constitution was approved by a close vote in a popular referendum in mid-October.
German Political Trends.—A clear enunciation of American policy in Germany and American concern for a united, rehabilitated German nation was given in Secretary Byrnes’ speech at Stuttgart on Sept. 7. The Secretary declared that the Allies should make clear to the German people without delay the “peace settlement which they expect them to accept and observe,” and should help them to set up a Democratic German Government. American forces would stay in Germany as long as any other occupation forces were there. While America favored controls over the whole of Germany for security, it would not favor “any controls that would subject the Ruhr and Rhineland to political domination or manipulation of outside powers.” Particularly significant was the Secretary’s statement that the “extent of territorial revisions in favor of Poland was still to be settled” (i.e., that the Oder frontier was not established). This last was hotly disputed by Polish leaders and contradicted by a subsequent declaration of M. Molotov that “the western frontiers of Poland cannot be changed.”
The effect both of Secretary Byrnes’ speech and of earlier Russian pronouncements was watched in German elections during the month. In the first voting in the Russian Zone, held early in September, the combined Socialist-Communist party (Socialist Unity) won an expected victory, with a good deal of pre-election aid from the occupying power. But the surprising fact was that it got only 55 per cent of the total vote. Voting in the British and French Zones showed the continued trend in western Germany in favor of the moderate Christian Democratic party, with the Communist vote negligible.
Bulgaria Ends Monarchy.—In a national referendum on Sept. 8 the Bulgarian people by a majority of about 90 per cent voted to end the Coburg dynasty and set up a “people’s republic.” Before the end of the month the nine-year-old king, Simeon II, left the country for residence in Egypt with his mother’s father, the ex-King of Italy. After his father’s death in 1943, Simeon became king under a regency, which after the war was appointed and controlled by the Soviet-dominated Fatherland Front Government.
In discussions in Paris Bulgaria’s effort to extend her territory down to the Aegean at the expense of Greece was voted down, and it was also agreed in the conference Military Commission (by a close vote of 11-9) that Bulgaria should be forbidden to fortify her Greek frontier.
Aid for Austria.—On his visit to the United States in September General Mark Clark, American commander in Austria, stated that the refusal of Russia to ship foodstuffs from the Russian zone might lead to retaliatory action on the part of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration in Austria. The General also criticized Soviet seizures prior to an inter-Allied agreement on what should be considered “German assets.” He added that, when UNRRA relief ended, the United States must be ready to give Austria economic assistance, including a large loan, or force Austria to look eastward for support. Austria meantime took steps for her own economic welfare by arranging at Paris for a favorable trade agreement with Italy, which included acceptance of Italian sovereignty over the Southern Tyrol. Germans in the Tyrol were to be granted regional autonomy and free trade with Austria. If approved by the major powers, this agreement would be incorporated in the Italian peace treaty.
Greek King Returns.—In accordance with the recent plebiscite in Greece which voted for continuance of the monarchy, King George II returned from London to Athens on Sept. 27. One of his first acts was to request Premier Constantin Tsaldaris to continue in office with a reorganized cabinet. The strife in Greece at the time of the King’s return was described by the Premier as “approaching the magnitude of war,” but was ascribed chiefly to foreign aid for leftist elements. These latter on Sept. 26 presented the terms on which they would agree to end conflict and join a coalition government. The demands included a coalition cabinet of all parties, withdrawal of British troops, amnesty for political and military prisoners and exiles, reorganization of the army, revision of election lists, and a government “equally friendly toward all allies.”