UNITED NATIONS AND PEACE TREATIES
Tackling the Arms Issue.—Chief development of the month in the U. N. Security Council was the adoption on Feb 13 of a resolution providing at least a method of approach to the twin problems of limiting armaments and controlling atomic energy. The resolution, adopted by a 10-0 vote with Russia dissenting but abstaining, was in accord with American insistence that action on atomic energy be kept separate from discussion of conventional armaments. Its clauses committed the Council, in brief:
1. To work out practical measures . . . for the regulation and reduction of armaments and for establishing international control and gathering essential information in these fields.
2. To consider as soon as possible the report submitted by the Atomic Energy Commission and to take suitable decisions.
3. To set up a commission [consisting in fact of the Council members themselves] to prepare and submit to the Council within three months proposals for (A) general regulation and reduction of armaments and armed forces; (B) practical and effective safeguards in connection with this regulation and reduction, but excluding all “those matters which fall within the competence of the Atomic Energy Commission.” The title of the commission shall be the “Commission for Conventional Armaments.”
4. To request the Military Staff Committee to submit as soon as possible their recommendations on principles to govern the organization of the U. N. Armed forces.
Prior to the adoption of this resolution, a sub-committee of six members of the Council had struggled for several days without success to reconcile American and Soviet plans of action. After its adoption the Council turned to consideration of the Atomic Energy Commission’s report. Russia submitted some twelve amendments to the commission’s recommendations, the general effect of the amendments being to change the recommendations to fit the Soviet scheme, i.e., prohibition of atomic bombs first, then a system of inspection, and finally enforcement and punitive measures “within the framework of the Council” and thus subject to veto.
Satellite Treaties Signed.—At Paris on Feb. 10 peace treaties were signed by representatives of Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Finland. It was regarded as certain that all these treaties would be ratified by the states concerned, though Italy might still struggle for better terms. Though the Yugoslav delegate had threatened to withhold his nation’s approval of the Italian treaty, he joined in signing. Rumania was the only nation fairly satisfied with her treaty terms, in view of the recovery of Transylvania; but Finland also welcomed the pact as at least a step toward peace.
German and Austrian Treaties.—During February the American, British, Soviet, and French deputies of the Council of Foreign Ministers worked hard on draft peace treaties for Austria and Germany, in preparation for the meeting of the Council at Moscow on March 10. As regards Austria, Yugoslav claims to the province of Corinthia were rejected by a 3-1 vote and it was decided that Austria’s boundaries should remain as on Jan. 1, 1938. The Austrian army would be limited to 50,000 to 55,000 and the air force to 5,000. Occupation forces would be withdrawn within 90 days after the treaty became effective. As regards Germany little was accomplished. The delegates adjourned on Feb. 25 without reaching agreement even on general principles to be followed in drawing up a settlement. It was announced that the United States delegation to Moscow would include over 100, including experts, secretaries and aides, but not including the embassy and consular staffs already in the Soviet capital.
UNITED STATES AND LATIN AMERICA
Joint Defense with Canada.—On Feb. 12 the United States and Canada reached agreement in the Permanent Joint Board on Defense on the extent to which the wartime cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries should be maintained in the post-war period. The collaboration, though necessarily limited, would be based on the following principles:
(1) Interchange of selected individuals, to increase the mutual familiarity of each country’s defense establishment.
(2) General cooperation and exchange of observers for exercises and the development and testing of material of common interest.
(3) Encouragement of common designs and standards in arms, equipment, organization, methods of training and new developments. Some United States standards long have been in use in Canada, so no radical change is contemplated or practicable, and the application of this principle will be gradual.
(4) Mutual and reciprocal availability of military, naval and air facilities in each country. Each country will continue, with a minimum of formality, to provide for the transit of military aircraft and public vessels of the other country through its territory and waters.
(5) As an underlying principle, all cooperative arrangements will avoid impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory.
The arrangement has in view the menace involved in a new arctic frontier. As Premier Mackenzie King stated in Parliament, “When we think of the defense of Canada we must, in addition to looking east and west as in the past, take the north into consideration as well.” The agreement involves no treaty or other contractual obligation and may be discontinued by either party at any lime. It is also regarded as strengthening each nation’s cooperation within the broader framework of the United Nations. For the present the strength of Canada’s armed forces has been fixed at 30,000 ground forces, 16,000 for air, and 10,000 for the Navy.
Soviet-American Friction.—The Moscow government in mid-February sent a sharp protest to Washington objecting to the “hostile” attitude shown by Under Secretary of State Dean Acheson in affirming at a Senate hearing that “Russian foreign policy is aggressive and expanding.” (The Russian note used the word “expansionist”.) This M. Molotov characterized as “a gross slander and hostile to the Soviet Union.” The phrase in question was used at the Senate hearing on the appointment of Mr. Lilienthal as Chairman of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, in reply to a query by Senator McKellar as to whether Russia, if she had possessed the atomic bomb, would not have “seized the rest of Europe and of the world.” In reply to the Soviet protest, Secretary Marshall stated that Mr. Acheson had spoken “in line of duty,” and that “under our standards a restrained comment on the matter of public policy is not a slander.” But the Russians were still dissatisfied and sent another note describing the Secretary’s reply as “not convincing.”
In the American press it was pointed out that the word “expanding” could hardly be considered an exaggeration, since the Soviet Union has gained by the war about 260,000 square miles of territory and 22,000,000 people. This includes former Russian provinces such as Esthonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Bessarabia, and also large portions of Finland and Poland and part of Czechoslovakia.
As a further cause of friction between Moscow and Washington, Mr. Bernard Baruch, in testifying before the Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, revealed according to press reports that Russia had gained considerable knowledge of atomic bomb secrets by means of espionage working through Canada. And Senator Vandenburg, speaking in his home state, emphasized Soviet discourtesy in failing to reply to four successive American notes requesting negotiations for a settlement of Lend-Lease aid amounting to about $11,260,000,000. All other countries which received such aid have negotiated settlements; and Congress set Dec. 31,1946 as the date for terminating Lend-Lease shipments. But it appears that under earlier “agreements made in good faith” the United States is still bound to ship Russia some $25,000,000 worth of goods, as well as to make shipments to China, Brazil, France and other nations.
Obstacles to Trade Treaties.—In Secretary Marshall’s statement before the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee early in February, in which he spoke of the world as “in a very critical condition,” he remarked also that any American drive toward “economic isolationism” would seriously embarrass his department in future negotiations. This was generally taken as a reference to sentiment in the present Congress in favor of limiting the power of the Executive to negotiate reciprocal trade treaties with other nations, a power long used by President Roosevelt and Secretary Hull to break down tariff barriers and promote world trade. If this power is extended beyond June of this year, it is certain that it will be hedged by several restrictions, such as the plan already adopted for hearings on rate cuts and review and recommendations by the U. S. Tariff Commission.
Any serious restrictions on the reciprocal trade treaty program, which in the present administration has been largely entrusted to Under Secretary of State W. L. Clayton, might seriously interfere with the State Department’s plans for promoting world trade and for negotiating agreements at the trade conference of 18 nations scheduled to meet at Geneva on April 8. At this conference the State Department, with a delegation of from 100 to 120 members, plans to negotiate trade agreements with the 17 other nations represented, and to discuss also the draft charter for a proposed International Trade Organization. Success of the treaties, as of the I. T. T. itself, is likely to hinge on the tariff policy of the U. S. Congress.
Trusteeships in the Pacific.—On Feb. 17 the U. S. State Department formally requested that its draft trusteeship proposals for the former Japanese mandated islands— the Marshalls, Carolines, and Marianas—be taken under consideration by the Security Council. These proposals, made public last November, provide for administration of the islands by the United States as strategic areas, from any part of which other nations may be barred for security reasons. Since the Soviet Union, Britain, and Australia all raised objections to discussion of the trusteeship proposals prior to the conclusion of a peace treaty with Japan, the United States after bringing them before the Council, did not press further for immediate action. Surprisingly enough, however, the Soviet Government in late February indicated that it considered American strategic control of the ex-mandates a reasonable proposal.
Contract for Arab Pipe Line.—It was announced in February that a group of five U.S. engineering companies had secured contracts for the construction of a 30-inch oil pipe line to extend over 1,000 miles from the oil fields in Saudi Arabia near the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean. The terminus will perhaps be the Syrian port of Tripoli. The cost is estimated at $100,000,000 and the date of completion about 1950. King Ibn Saud is considering, among other public works, the construction of a railway from his capital, Ryadh, to the Persian Gulf port of Damman.
Nicaragua’s New President.—In the presidential elections in Nicaragua held on Feb. 2, Dr. Leonardo Arguello, 72-year-old candidate of the Liberal party, gained a two- to-one majority over his chief opponent. Dr. Arguello had the support of the present dictator, President Anastasio Somaza, and would doubtless continue the policies of the Somaza regime. Somaza took control of Nicaragua by a coup d’état in 1936, got himself elected President in 1938, and in 1939 had his term extended by Congress for eight years.
BRITISH EMPIRE
Palestine Issue to United Nations.— In mid-February, finding that its latest proposals for a Palestine solution were rejected by both Jews and Arabs, the British Government announced its decision to refer the whole problem to the United Nations. Since the U. N. Assembly rather than the Council was the body chosen to make the decision, this would mean perhaps a year’s delay before action could be taken. During this period British administration would continue, and, according to the government statement, the immigration quota of Jews would remain at from 1,500 to 4,000 monthly. In earlier proposals made at the London conference, the British had suggested a “five-year breathing spell,” during which, while still within the frame work of the mandate, Palestine would be divided into semi- autonomous Jewish and Arab areas and the British would assist in training the native population for self-government. For various reasons this plan proved unacceptable to both factions. Following the British announcement, both the Zionists and the states of the Arab League began preparations for presenting their divergent views to the wider hearing offered by the United Nations. As in the past, the Arabs will insist on a unified Palestinian state, with a bar on further Jewish immigration, but with political guarantees to the Jewish minority already in the country.
Within Palestine, the evacuation of British women and children was begun on Feb. 2. In view of continued disorders, I lie British delivered what was practically an ultimatum to the Jewish Agency calling for its full support in putting down terrorism and surrendering offenders to justice. When this was refused, large areas were put under what amounted to martial law. For failure in his efforts to solve the Palestine problem, Foreign Secretary Bevin in a speech in Parliament on Feb. 25 was inclined to blame President Truman’s renewed demand last October for admission of 100,000 displaced Jews.
British to Quit India.—The British government on Feb. 20 announced its intention to withdraw completely from India by June of 1948. This would give the warring factions in India some 15 months to compose their differences and settle their governmental problems or face the prospect of civil war. But at the time of the British anouncement the Indian factions were as far from agreement as in any period since the British proposals for independence were first advanced. Even after concessions from the Congress party, the Moslem League still refused to join the constitution-making Assembly, and appeared inclined to denounce the whole constitutional program. Congress party leaders insisted that if the League refused to cooperate, it should withdraw its ministers from the interim government. The chief hope for India, and a very slim one, is that, with the British out of the picture, the Indian leaders will feel increased responsibility for working out a peaceful solution by themselves. As Viceroy of India in the transition period, Viscount Wavell was to be replaced by Rear Admiral Viscount Mount- batten.
Anglo-Egyptian Relations.—From Cairo it was announced in February that the new Egyptian Government under Premier Mahmoud Mokrashy Pasha was still intent on bringing Anglo-Egyptian relations before the United Nations Security Council. Before this body Egypt would seek more speedy withdrawal of British forces from her territory and full recognition of Egypt’s claims to sovereignty over the Sudan. In presenting her case, she would count on the full support of the states of the Arab League, but there were indications that some of these states, especially those on the Soviet borders, might question the wisdom of any further weakening of British influence in the Near Eastern sphere.
EUROPE AND NEAR EAST
Strikes Threaten France.—Plans of Premier Paul Ramadier’s coalition government in France to check inflation and stabilize wages were threatened in February by strikes of newspaper employees and renewed threats of police and other government workers to strike for higher pay. Since the Communist party supports these demands and also exercises control over the labor organizations, the continuance of the present government and even of the Fourth Republic rests largely with the Communist leaders.
From French Indo-China reports failed to indicate that the struggle there for restoration of French control was moving toward a quick decision. That France has some support from the native potentates was indicated by a statement on Feb. 11 by the 26- year-old King of Cambodia. He declared that his 3,000,000 subjects must remain under French protection “for practical reasons,” as a small state “sandwiched between 20,000,000 Annamese and 12,000,000 Siamese.” A draft constitution for Cambodia is to be submitted to a national Assembly, the first convoked in the nation’s history.
Italy’s Revamped Ministry.—On Feb. 6 Premier Alcide de Gasperi announced his third reorganized cabinet. Like his preceding coalition ministries, it had the weakness of joining up radically opposed members ranging from Communists to the moderates of the Premier’s own Christian Socialist party, with under secretaries of one party often hooked up with ministers of another. The Premier’s aim is to carry on until—if the new Constitution is approved in time— elections can be held in June. The prospect was that the National Assembly would not ratify the peace treaty until after the failure of efforts to get a revision.
Sofia Regime Recognized.—On Feb. 12 the British Foreign Office announced formal recognition of the Leftist Fatherland Front Government in Bulgaria, while at the same time censuring the methods by which Premier Dimitrov and his followers had consolidated their control. The British note again called on the Bulgarian government to carry out its pledges to maintain “freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion, and of public meeting.” On the same date it was reported from Sofia that some 200,000 Russians were moving into Bulgaria as “settlers” and that there was to be a plebiscite in Dobruja to decide whether it would remain Bulgarian or be joined to the Soviet Union. By such a transfer the Danube mouth would fall more completely under Soviet control.
Polish Government Reorganized.— By a vote of the new Polish Parliament on Feb. 5, Boleslaw Beirut, who had headed the Provisional Government, was elected president for a term of seven years. Joseph Cyrankiewiecz, 35-year-old leader of the Socialist party, became Premier in the new Ministry, which save for the resignation of former Vice Premier Mikolajczyk, remained much the same as before the election. The American Ambassador to Poland, Arthur Bliss Lane, returned to the United States in February for consultation, but it was announced that his return did not mean a break in diplomatic relations. In a note on Jan. 28 the U. S. State Department again declared that the Warsaw Government had failed to carry out its promise of free elections, and on Feb. 4, in receiving the new Polish Ambassador, President Truman expressed “deep concern” over this failure. From Warsaw came appeals for aid from the Western powers and for a renewal of cordial relations, but only on condition of “complete internal liberty” for the new regime. There was to be a 15 per cent reduction in expenditures for the army and secret police.
Inquiry in Greece.—During February the Balkan Inquiry Commission of the United Nations Security Council continued its investigation of the civil conflict in Greece and of the alleged support extended to Greek leftists by states on the Greek frontiers. At one point the Committee requested postponement of the execution of some 14 guerrilla leaders on the ground that their testimony was needed, but this was resented by the Greeks as an “interference in Greek domestic affairs.”
Charges against Albania.—In the Security Council the British charges accusing Albania of planting mines in Corfu Channel were finally taken up on Feb. 18. Britain accused the Albanian Government of “an international crime” for laying mines in international waters in time of peace. The Albanian representative denied that his Government was responsible for the mines and declared that the British squadron which encountered the mines was not flying the British flag and did not respond to signals from Albanian shore batteries, lie declared that British use of the channel was “provocative” and a violation of Albanian sovereignty. In war days, he added, the British military mission to Albania had collected and given protection to “war criminals, quislings, fascists, and gestapo agents,” and harbored them at Cairo and in Rome.
FAR EAST
China’s Economy Near Collapse.— After the decision of the United States to withhold immediate aid in the solution of China’s economic and political difficulties, the Chinese economy took a quick downward trend. Prices skyrocketed and the value of the Chinese dollar fell to about 17,000 to one dollar American. A subsidy on exports had to be abandoned since it would be met by a corresponding rise in U. S. tariffs. Emergency controls were restored and the legal rate for the dollar was set at 12,000 to one. Yet the economic breakdown prophesied after the withdrawal of American aid appeared unavoidable. Naturally President Chiang attributed the prolongation of civil conflict to the withdrawal of American armaments and credits.
“China’s Destiny” Translated.—Late January was marked by the almost simultaneous publication in the United States of two translations of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek’s China’s Destiny, first issued in China in 1943. An “authorized” translation was published by Macmillan, and another, issued by the Roy Publishers, contained also a translation of Chiang’s shorter Chinese Economic Theory, together with “Notes and Commentary” by Philip Jaffe, editor of Amerasia; this latter might be described as a running adverse criticism, seeking to show Chiang’s incapacity for liberal leadership. In truth, writing in 1943, Chiang was interested chiefly in bolstering Chinese morale and laying plans for her economic recovery. Hence lie blamed China’s trouble on the unequal treaties, advocated state control of national economy, and showed more concern over a strong national government than over social welfare.
North Koreans Armed.—In a statement made upon his return to this country from his command in Korea, General John R. Hodge verified reports that the Soviet Government is arming and equipping in Northern Korea a force of native troops estimated at 500,000, based on a draft of males from 18 to 25. General Hodge added that the mission of paving the way for an independent Korea had failed because of Soviet noncooperation, and that any break in the present stalemate would have to be accomplished at “higher levels.”
Damage in Manchuria.—An article on “Manchuria’s Postwar Economy,” in the Far Eastern Survey for Feb. 12, bears out the report of the Pauley Reparations Mission that Soviet damage to Manchurian industrial plants totaled about $858,000,000. Injuries may be classified under the heads of personal looting, damage to buildings, removal of machinery, and introduction of some ten billion dollars of invasion currency which the Soviets will not redeem. Removals were chiefly heavy equipment, generators and machine tools. Informed observers attribute the Soviet policy, first, to a desire to replace war losses and build up an industrial region in eastern Siberia, and second, to make it difficult to restore Manchuria as a key industrial area in the event of a hostile Kuomintang Chinese government.