1. The Cold War


It is true that Great Britain and the United States cooperated with the Soviet Union during the World War II for the overthrow of Hitler, but as soon as the War was over, the former allies began to drift in opposite directions.

There steadily developed a state of tension among them which came to be known by the name of the Cold War.

The Anglo-American bloc was not prepared to allow the Soviet Union to extend her sphere of influence beyond what she had already achieved up to the beginning of 1947.

Santa Fe Council on International Relations » Student/Faculty

Image Source: sfcir.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/FINAL-Banner-Coldwar.jpg

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The United States started with the Truman Doctrine and followed it up with the Marshall Plan, NATO, SEATO, Baghdad Pact, etc.

2. Truman Doctrine:


The Truman Doctrine came to be enunciated under the following circumstances. After the cessation of hostilities in 1945, the Communists selected Italy, France, Greece, and Turkey as their main targets. They strengthened their position in France and Italy by taking advantage of the chaotic conditions prevailing in those countries after the War. They resorted to acts of sabotage and made the working of administration practically impossible.

However, the situation in Greece and Turkey was more critical. The Greeks were in danger of even losing their independence. The danger came from 13,000 Communist led guerillas who received equipment, arms and refuge from Greece’s Northern Communist neighbours viz., Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania.

Most of the guerillas were Greeks, but they could not keep a civil war going on for two years without active and substantial help from outside. In December 1946, Greece complained to the Security Council against the violation of her territorial integrity by her neighbours.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

A Commission was sent by the Security Council to make a report. In January 1947, the United States sent an Economic Mission to Greece to find out what could be done for that country to save her from collapse. It was at that time that the British Government decided to withdraw her troops from Greece. The United Nations Relief Agency was also due to wind up its business on 31 March 1947.

The situation in Turkey was also alarming. In 1945, the Soviet Union refused to renew the old treaty of friendship with Turkey. It also demanded that Turkey must share with the Soviet Union her control and defence of the Dardanelles.

An old claim to the two large provinces of Eastern Turkey was also revived by the Soviet Union and a propaganda campaign was started against the Turkish Government which was described as Fascist and reactionary. The people of Turkey were urged to revolt against their Government. It was under these circumstances that the Turkish Government asked the United States to help her against the Soviet menace.

On 12 March 1947, President Truman addressed a joint session of the American Congress and accounted what came to be known as the Truman Doctrine. To quote Truman, “The very existence of the Greek State is today threatened by the terrorist activities of several thousand armed men led by Communists who defy the Government’s authority…Greece must have assistance if it is to become a self-supporting and self-respecting democracy. Turkey has sought financial assistance from Great Britain and the United States for the purpose of effecting that modernisation necessary for the maintenance of its national integrity.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

That integrity is essential for the preservation of order in the Middle East. We shall not realise our objectives unless we are willing to help free people to maintain their free institutions and their national integrity against aggressive movements that seek to impose upon them totalitarian regimes.

This is no more than a frank recognition that totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples by direct or indirect aggressions undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States. The United States has made frequent protests against coercion and intimidation in violation of the Yalta agreement, in Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria…… I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.

We must take immediate and resolute action. The free peoples of the world look to us for support in maintaining their freedom. If we father in our leadership we may endanger the peace of the world, and we shall surely endanger the welfare of our own nation”. President Truman asked the Congress to sanction 400 million dollars by June 1948 to help Greece and Turkey.

The Truman Doctrine was a proposal to send military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey. In May 1947, the American Congress authorised aid to Greece and Turkey. By 1950, it was found that the American policy had completely changed the state of affairs in Greece and Turkey. The guerillas were completely eliminated from the Greek scene. Peace was restored in the country.

Railways began to operate normally. Traffic on roads became safe. Bridges were restored. Thousands of new houses were built. Agricultural production surpassed the pre-War level. There was more land under cultivation than ever before. The same was the case in Turkey. Peace was restored in that country. Fresh elections were held. The one party government in Turkey disappeared after 27 years.

3. Marshall Plan:


On 5 June 1947, Secretary of State Marshall delivered his famous speech at Harvard which initiated the European Recovery Programme. In that speech, he declared, “The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products—principally from America—are so much greater than her present ability to pay, that she must have substantial additional help or face economic, social and physical deterioration of a very grave character.

It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace.” Again, “Initiative, I think, must come from Europe.

The role of this country should consist of friendly aid in the drafting of a European Programme and of later support of such a programme as far as it may be practicable for us to do so. The programme should be a joint one, agreed to by a number of, if not all, European nations.”

The Marshall Plan was an extension of the principle underlined in the Truman Doctrine. The Plan dealt with Europe in general and not with any particular state or states, as was the case with the Truman Doctrine. It was essentially an economic plan. It represented an elaborate programme as it was to last for four years. The plan showed an anxiety on the part of the United States to avert the economic crisis which was apprehended as a result of the World War II.

The plan also underlined the American anxiety and determination to fight out Communism. President Truman had already dismissed Henry Wallace in September 1946 on account of his pro-Soviet views. The situation in France and Italy was a source of great anxiety to the American administration.

The Communist Parties of France and Italy were gaining in strength and it was being impressed upon the American Government that in order to put a check on the Communist influence, the United States must come to the help of France and Italy.

While the political objective of the Marshall Plan cannot be denied, its humanitarian aspect cannot be ignored. The Marshall Plan strengthened the movement for European unity. As the Truman doctrine bypassed the United Nations, the same was true of the Marshall Plan.

As regards the reactions to the Marshall Plan, it was welcomed in the United States as it was directed against the Soviet Union. In Europe, “the Marshall offer was like Manna from Heaven and it did not require much imagination to grasp it with fervour.” As was to be expected the Marshall Plan was attacked by the Soviet Union which described it as an intervention in the internal affairs of other states.

It was interpreted as a symbol of American imperialism and betrayal of the United Nations. The tension between the United States and the Soviet Union increased and the relations between the two countries further deteriorated. The countries of Eastern Europe, under the Soviet influence, kept away from the Marshall Plan.

On 15 December 1947, the American Congress passed the Interim Foreign Aid Bill authorising $522 million as interim aid to meet the crisis in France, Italy and Austria until March 1948 This amount was increased to $577 million in March 1948. On 19 December 1947, Truman sent the European Recovery Programme Bill to the Congress in which he asked for a sum of $17 000 million over a period of four years.

The Foreign Assistance Act was passed by the American Congress and it received the assent of the President on 3 April, 1948. Bilateral agreements were signed between the United States and Great Britain, Italy, France etc. The Economic Cooperation Administration was established to give help to Europe.

In spite of opposition from the Soviet Union, the Marshall Plan achieved a great measure of success. During the years of its operation (1947 to 1951), the United States gave $11 billion in aid and thereby helped to protect Europe from economic collapse and Communist domination.

4. Point Four Programmes:


On 20 January 1949, President Truman enunciated what is known as the Point Four Programme. The four points emphasised by the American President were unfaltering support to the United Nations continuation of their programmes for forward economic recovery, strengthening of freedom-loving nations against the dangers of aggression and a bold programme of technical assistance to the under­developed areas. The American Congress passed the necessary legislation and provided funds to implement the Point Four Programme.

5. Rio Pact of 1947:


The Rio Treaty or Pact or the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance was signed at Rio de Janeiro m 1947 at the Inter-American Conference for the maintenance of continental peace and security. Its Preamble states that the Treaty has been concluded in order to assure peace through adequate means to provide for reciprocal assistance to meet armed attacks against any American State and to deal with threats of aggression against any of them.

The Treaty has 26 clauses. The parties to the Treaty condemn war and undertake not to resort to the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. They also undertake to submit any controversy which may arise between them to methods of peaceful settlement and to settle any such controversy by means of the procedure in force in the Inter-American system before referring the matter to the United Nations.

It is agreed that an armed attack by any state against an American state IS to be considered as an attack against all the American States and consequently, every party to the Treaty undertakes to assist in meeting the attack in the exercise of the inherent right of the individual or collective self-defence recognised by the Charter.

Measures of self-defence are to be taken until the Security Council takes measures necessary to maintain international peace and security If the integrity of the territory or sovereignty or political independence of any American state is affected by an aggression which is not an armed attack, or by an extra-continental or intra-continental conflict or by any other fact or situation that may endanger the peace of America, the Organ of Consultation has to meet immediately in order to agree on the measures to be taken in case of aggression to assist the victim of aggression or the measures to be taken for common defence and maintenance of peace and security of the continent.

In the case of a conflict between two or more American States the contracting parties are required to call upon the contending states to suspend hostilities and take all necessary measures to re-establish or maintain Inter-American peace and security and the solution of the conflict by peaceful means.

The measures on which the Organ of Consultation may agree consist one or more of the following: recall of chiefs of diplomatic missions, breaking of diplomatic relations, partial or complete interruption of economic relations, or of rail, sea, postal, telegraphic, telephonic and radio-telephonic or radio-telegraphic communications and use of armed force. The Treaty was made for an indefinite period, but any state can leave it by a notification in writing to the Pan-American Union.

The view of Secretary of State Duties was that the Rio Pact was a significant development in American foreign policy. It was based on the principle of one for all and all for one. The Pact set a precedent from which the United States went on to develop the even more significant North Atiantic Pact. The Monroe Doctrine was “continentalized” by the Rio Treaty.

6. North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) of 1949:


The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in Washington on 4 April 1949 by the United States, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom. Greece and Turkey became its members in February 1952. The Federal Republic of Germany joined the NATO in May 1955.

As regards the circumstances leading to the establishment of the NATO, it was due to the war­like policy followed by the Soviet Union in the post-war period. She put pressure on Iran for the maintenance of Soviet forces in the North of Iran.

She made territorial demands on Turkey including claims to the bases in the Straits. She helped guerilla warfare in Greece and also the Communists who stirred up a civil war. She captured control of Eastern Europe, culminating in the coup d’etat in Czechoslovakia in 1948.

She rejected the Marshall Plan and left no stone unturned to cripple the economic recovery of the West. She reorganised the Cominform. She violated the terms of the Potsdam agreement of 1946. She resorted to the Berlin blockade in 1948 and continued the same for more than ten months.

She refused to ratify the peace treaties with the former enemy countries. She abused the Veto power in the United Nations. She counted upon its chances of setting up Communist regimes in countries where there was economic distress as a result of World War II. She also encouraged subversion, sabotage and unrest in all those countries.

Many efforts were made to persuade the Soviet Union to agree to a peaceful settlement of the differences and to cooperate in a universal approach to peace, security and progress under the United Nations. However, all those efforts were unsuccessful. It appeared that the Soviet Union was determined to exploit any situation that might help her to realise her goal of a world empire.

Under these circumstances, the United States could not keep quiet. She gave military and economic aid to Greece and Turkey. The Marshall Plan helped the nations of Western Europe to rebuild their shattered economies. However, it was felt that all that was not enough. In 1948, Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom signed the Brussels Treaty under which each pledged herself to assist the others in case of a military attack.

The American Government welcomed the Treaty. Shortly thereafter, Senator Vandenberg proposed a resolution which called for “the association of the United States, by constitutional process, with such regional and other collective arrangements as are based on continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, and as affect its national security.”

The resolution was adopted by the Senate in June 1948. After that the American President began negotiations with other countries in the North Atlantic area. Those led to the development of the North Atlantic Treaty.

The North Atlantic Treaty has a Preamble and 14 Articles. The Preamble states that the parties to the Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and the preservation of peace and security in the North Atlantic area.

Article 1 provides that the parties undertake to settle any international disputes in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered and to refrain in their own international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.

Article 2 provides that the parties will contribute towards the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which those institutions are founded and by permitting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Article 3 provides that in order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty the parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. Article 4 provides that the parties will consult one another whenever in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.

Article 5 provides that parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered as an attack against all of them. They agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them in the exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence, will assist the party or parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof, shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 6 provides that armed attack on one or more of the parties is deemed to include an armed attack on the territory of any of the parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian departments of France, on the occupation forces of any party in Europe, on the islands under the jurisdiction of any party in the North Atlantic area, north of the Tropic of Cancer or on the vessels or aircraft in these areas of any of the parties.

Article 7 provides that this treaty does not affect the rights and obligations under the Charter of the parties which are members of the United Nations or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 8 provides that each party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the parties or any third state is in conflict with the provisions of this treaty and undertakes not to enter into any international engagements in conflict with this treaty.

Article 10 provides that the parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area, to accede to this treaty Article 12 provides that after the treaty has been in force for 10 years or at any time thereafter, the parties shall, if any one of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the treaty having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13 provides that after the treaty has been in force for 20 years, any party may cease to be a party one year after its notice of denunciation has been given to the Government of the United States which shall inform the other parties concerned. The NATO was intended to strengthen the morale of Western Europe. The association of the United States with the other NATO powers was bound to halt the Soviet expansion westwards.

Since the stand taken by the United States, was definite and clear, the Soviet leaders were not expected to take any risk in Western Europe. The advocates of the NATO point out to a large number of its achievements during the period of its existence.

It is emphasized that there has been no war in Western Europe since the NATO came into existence. This fact alone testifies to the effectiveness of the NATO as an instrument of peace.The Communists made no territorial gains anywhere in Europe or in the Atlantic area since 1949. The NATO forces are always ready to meet any challenge. The NATO air power has increased tremendously and the same is true of its naval force.

There has been a vast improvement in the effectiveness of ground, air and naval forces since 1949. This has been accomplished through better training and equipment. NATO forces are equipped with the most modem weapons. Organisational arrangements have been developed to assure effective coordination in the use of forces and other military resources.

Indirectly, the NATO has contributed to the development of closer practical unity among European Nations and lessened their rivalries and antagonisms. The Paris agreements of October 1954 restored to West Germany its sovereignty created a Western European Union and tied Germany to the west through her membership of the NATO and the Western European Union.

The critics of the NATO point out that as a result of the NATO, the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union increased and international tension became more and more acute. There was always the possibility of a war as the NATO powers were determined to stop Soviet expansion at all places in the Atlantic area. In spite of the criticism, the NATO is very strong even today. Its members feel that their security is linked up with that of the United States.

They feel that they cannot defend themselves alone against die Soviet Union and her satellites. They are alarmed by the spectacular expansion of the Soviet navy in the Baltic and the Mediterranean and the increasing evidence of its activity in the Atlantic, the Caribbean, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

The Europeans are convinced that the American nuclear deterrent will be used as their shield only so long as American troops are stationed in Europe. That is the reason why the European members have accepted the American demand that the burden of the alliance should be shared more equally.

President Nixon once declared that American forces in Europe would be reduced in size in 1971 and the fear of American withdrawal brought home to the European members the situation in which they will be placed when that happened.

No wonder, they are willing to cooperate with the United States in her efforts to put a check to Soviet expansion. If the United States requires the help of the NATO partners, the latter also require her help. It is in the mutual interests of all concerned that the NATO remains strong in spite of the lapse of more than a quarter of a century.

7. Western European Union:


On 27 May 1952, a treaty was signed at Paris to establish the European Defence Community. It contained provisions for common political institutions, armed forces, budget and arms programme. The single integrated army was given the name of European Defence Forces and plans were prepared for political institutions to supervise the European Defence Forces and act as the governing body of the Community.

The Assembly of the Coal and Steel Community was to act for the European Defence Community. The Netherlands and West Germany were the first to ratify the treaty but France refused to do so. Consequently, a conference was held in London from 28 September to 3 October 1954 with a view to work out a compromise.

The Conference devised a system which provided for Western Unity within the framework of the Brussels Treaty of 1948. The newly formed Western European Union had the same members as the European Defence Community except the addition of the United Kingdom. The Council of the Western European Union was given broad authority with the power to act in a number of important measures by majority vote thereby replacing national with international control.

It was also decided that Western Germany was to be restored her sovereignty. The Allied High Commissioners gave up the exercise of most of their occupation rights. Provision was made for West Germany to join the NATO and make her contribution to the defence of the West.

8. Anzus Pact of 1951:


A treaty was entered into between the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United States in 1951 for the purpose of coordinating, their efforts for collective defence and preservation of peace in the Pacific area.

Article 1 of the Pact provides that the parties undertook to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful meant in such a manner that international peace and security are not endangered. They also undertook to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent for the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2 provides that in order to achieve more effectively the obligations of this treaty, the parties separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 3 provides that the parties shall consult one another whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened in the Pacific.

Article 4 provides that each party recognises that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of the parties will be dangerous to its own peace and safety. Each party declares that it will meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes. Any armed attack will be immediately reported to the Security Council for necessary action.

Article 5 provides that an armed attack is deemed to include an attack on the metropolitan territory of any of the parties or the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific or on its armed forces, public vessels or aircraft in the Pacific.

Article 6 provides that this treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 7 provides that the parties shall establish a council consisting of their Foreign Ministers or their deputies to consider the methods concerning the implementation of this treaty.

The Council is to be so organised as to be able to meet at any time. According to Article 10, this treaty is to remain in force for an indefinite period but any country can leave after giving a notice of one year. However, none has done so far.

9. SEATO or Manila Pact of 1954:


Plans for the defence of South-East Asia had been canvassed ever since the emergence of Communist China as a major factor in Asian and world politics after 1949. Countries like the Philippines, Siam and South Korea which considered themselves to be menaced by the Communists made suggestions from time to time for the setting up of a defensive organisation. However, nothing substantial came out of those suggestions.

In 1951, a Conference was held between the Far East Military Commands of Great Britain, the United States and France. On that occasion, it was contended by France that her struggle in Indo-China was really a fight for the preservation of South-East Asia from communism and it was the duty of other states to help her. The outbreak of the Korean War and the help given to North Korea by Communist China and the Soviet Union frightened the Anzus powers.

The Chinese Government helped Dr. Ho Chi Minh. The possibility of a Chinese thrust to the Pacific was feared. The talks which started in Singapore were continued in Washington in 1952 and Canada, New Zealand and Australia joined the deliberations.

However, no definite action was taken. In 1953, Prime Minister Churchill proposed to the American Government that the principles of the NATO should be extended to South-East Asia but he did not get any favourable reply.

It was in April 1954 that Secretary of State Dulles flew to London and asked the British Government to examine the possibility of establishing a collective defence system for South-East Asia and the neighbouring Pacific regions. Mr Dulles wanted to set up the defensive organisation without the Colombo Powers but Sir Anthony Eden insisted on including them because “without their understanding and support no permanent South-East Asia Defence Organisation would be fully effective.” The American Government wanted the British Government to sign the military pact at once and discuss its details later on.

The object of the American Government was to strengthen her hands before going to the Geneva Conference of 1954, but the British Government did not agree. However, within a few weeks of the Geneva Agreement, an Indo-China Conference was summoned to meet in the Philippines on 6 September 1954.

Invitations were sent to the United States, Great Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand and the Philippines. It was left to Sir Anthony Eden to approach the Colombo Powers. Invitations were sent to all of them, but with the exception of Pakistan all others declined to participate. As India refused the invitation, Pakistan accepted it.

On 8 September 1954, the United States, Great Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines signed a Treaty known as the SEATO, or Treaty of Collective Defence of South-East Asia at Manila.

The Contracting Parties recognised the sovereign equality of all its members. They reiterated their faith in the purposes and principles set forth in the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments.

They reaffirmed the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. They declared that they would earnestly strive by every peaceful means to promote self-government and to secure independence of all countries. They declared publicly their sense of unity so that any potential aggressor would appreciate that the parties stood together in the area. It was declared that the contracting parties desired to co-ordinate their efforts for collective defence for the preservation of peace and security.

Under the Treaty, the contracting parties undertook to settle any international disputes in which they might be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice were not in danger. They undertook to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use offered in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

It was agreed that the parties separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, would maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack, and to prevent and counter subversive activities directed from without against their territorial integrity and political stability.

The parties undertook to strengthen their free institutions and cooperate with one another in the further development of economic measures, including technical assistance, designed both to promote economic progress and social well-being and to further the individual and collective efforts of the Governments towards those aims.

Each party recognised that aggression by means of an armed attack in the “treaty area” against any of the parties, or against any state or territory, which the parties by unanimous agreement might designate, would endanger its own peace and safety. Each party agreed that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.

The measures taken were to be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations. If in the opinion of any of the parties, the inviolability or the integrity of the territory or the sovereignty or political independence of any party in the “treaty area,” or any other state or territory, was threatened in any way other than by armed attack, or was affected or threatened by any fact or circumstances, which might threaten the peace of any area, the parties were to consult immediately in order to agree on the measures which should be taken for common defence. No action on the territory of any state was to be taken except on the invitation or with the consent of the Government concerned.

Provision was made for the establishment of a Council on which each of the contracting parties was to be represented. The Council was to consider matters concerning the implementation of the Treaty. It was also to provide for consultation with regard to military or any other planning as the situation obtaining in the “treaty area” might from time to time require. The Council was to be so organised as to be able to meet at any time.

It was declared that the Treaty did not affect in any way the rights and obligations of any of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations, or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security. Each party declared that none of the international engagements then in force between it and any other country was in conflict with the provisions of the Treaty. Each party undertook not to enter into any international engagements in conflict with this Treaty.

Any other state in a position to further the objectives of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the area could be invited to accede to this Treaty by the unanimous agreement of the parties.

The “treaty area” mentioned in the Treaty was the general area of South­east Asia, including the entire territories of the Asian parties and the general area of the South-West Pacific, not including the Pacific area north of 21 degrees North Latitude. The parties were given the authority to include any other area in the Treaty area.

The Treaty was to remain in force for an indefinite period. However, any party could cease to be a member after giving notice of one year. While signing the Treaty, it was made clear on behalf of the American delegation that its main object was to stop Communist aggression. The effectiveness of this Treaty was tested during the Vietnam War.

Although there were many members of the SEATO, the main burden of fighting the Vietnam War fell on the United States. After a protracted war, North Vietnam won a victory over South Vietnam in 1975. The prestige of the United States fell and the Treaty was dissolved in the same year.

10. The Baghdad Pact or CENTO (1955):


The Baghdad Pact consists of a Preamble and eight Articles. The Preamble states that the friendly and brotherly relations existing between Iraq and Turkey are in constant progress and it is desirable to implement the contents of the Treaty of friendship and good-neighborliness concluded between Iraq and Turkey on 29 March 1946, which recognised the fact that peace and security between the two countries was an integral part of the peace and security of all the nations of the world and in particular the nations of the Middle East and was the basis of their foreign policies.

Both Iraq and Turkey realised the great responsibilities borne by them in their capacity as members of the United Nations concerned with the maintenance of peace and security in the Middle East region Both the countries were completely convinced of the necessity of concluding a pact fulfilling those aims It was under the above-mentioned circumstances that the Baghdad Pact was signed in 1955.

Article 1 of the Pact provides that the contracting parties will cooperate for their security and defence. Such measures as they agreed to take to give effect to this co-operation may form the subject of special agreements with each other.

Article 2 provides that in order to ensure co-operation the competent, authorities of the contracting parties will determine the measures to be taken as soon as the Pact comes into force. Those measures will become operative as soon as they are approved of by the parties.

According to Article 3, the parties undertook to refrain from any interference whatsoever m the internal affairs of each other and settle any dispute between themselves in a peaceful manner in accordance with the United Nations Charter.

Article 4 provides that the parties declared that the provisions of the present Pact are not in contradiction with any of the international obligations contracted by either of them with any third state or states. They do not derogate from and cannot be interpreted as derogating from the said international obligations incompatible with the present Pact

Article 5 provides that this Pact shall be open for accession to any particular state of the Arab League or any other state actively concerned with the security and peace in this region and which is fully recognised by both the parties. Accession shall come into effect from the date when the instrument of accession is deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Iraq. Any acceding state may conclude special agreements with one or more states parties to the present Pact.

The competent authority of any acceding state may determine measures in accordance with Article 2. Article 6 provides that a Permanent Council at ministerial level will be set up to function within the framework of the purposes of this Pact when at least four powers become parties to the Pact. The Council will adopt its own rules of procedure.

Article 7 provides that the Pact shall remain in force for a period of five years, renewable for other five-year periods. Any contracting party may withdraw from the Pact by notifying to the other parties in writing its desire to do so.

The Baghdad Pact was declared to be open for accession to any member state of the Arab League or any other state which is actively concerned with the peace and security of this region. It was under this clause that Britain joined the Baghdad Pact in April 1955. A special agreement was concluded between Britain and Iraq by which Britain became a member of the Baghdad Pact and also undertook to co-operate in the sphere of planning and combined training of Iraq’s armed forces for the defence of Iraq.

Britain pledged herself to help Iraq in creating and maintaining an effective Iraqi Air Force, efficient airfields and an efficient system of warning against air attacks Provision was made for British technical personnel to be made available to Iraq.

It was also provided that in the event of an armed attack against Iraq or threat of an armed attack, which in the opinion of the two contracting governments endanger the security of Iraq, the Government of the United Kingdom, at the request of the Government of Iraq, shall make available assistance including if necessary, armed forces, to help the defence of Iraq.

In July 1955, Pakistan acceded to the Baghdad Pact. In November 1955 Iran joined the Pact. In the same month, the United States guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Baghdad Pact countries. The United States joined the Baghdad Pact in its economic sphere in May 1956 and joined the same in military sphere in 1958 to combat international communism. Iraq announced her withdrawal from the Baghdad Pact in March 1959 and the Pact was renamed as Central Treaty Organisation.

The Baghdad Pact was directed not only against the Soviet Union, but also against the non- aligned Arab states. In order to strengthen its position on the Kashmir issue, Pakistan exploited the Pact against India. The Baghdad Pact divided the Arab World. Through its membership of that Pact Pakistan was responsible for contributing to that division. By destroying Arab unity, the Baghdad Pact also increased instability in the region.

In the war between Pakistan and India, Iran and Turkey supplied arms to Pakistan, though Britain and the United States were neutral. In February 1968, President Nasser condemned the Baghdad Pact as representing foreign domination in the region. The Baghdad Pact did not add to the security or confidence of the people in the Middle East. It created panic and fear. It encouraged a race for armaments which was not conducive to peace.

It is doubtful if the professed objectives of the Baghdad Pact have been actually realised. There is no unity of objectives of the members of the Pact. The main aim of the Western Powers was to secure control over the oil-rich Middle East and to secure bases in the name of fighting international communism.

At the Ankara meeting held in January 1958, the Prime Minister of Pakistan frankly admitted that communism posed no real threat to his country and the real threat was from the neutralists. The Iraqi delegate told the Council that communism was no problem in the Middle East and the real problem was that of Israel.

Although the professed object of the Western sponsorers of the Baghdad Pact is to combat international communism, the Asian partners have been using the alliance only to strengthen their position. The Pact has failed to achieve the unity of the Arab powers. If the objective of the Pact was to keep off the Soviet Union from the Middle East, it has been a total failure.

11. The Warsaw Pact (1955):


If the Western powers were able to set up military alliances against the Soviet Union and her camp followers, the latter could not be expected to lag behind. In December 1954 a conference of eight European states viz., Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Poland, Rumania and the Soviet Union, with an observer from Communist China, was held in Moscow to consider their attitude towards the Paris Peace Treaties.

The conference opposed the ratification of the treaties and declared that in the event of their ratification, the participating countries would adopt joint measures of defence. It was further declared that they would meet again to consider concrete measures for a joint defence command.

As the Paris Treaties were ratified in spite of the above declaration the countries mentioned above met in Warsaw for four days from 11 May to 14 May 1955. After long discussions, they concluded the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance known as the Warsaw Pact.

Under this Pact, it was decided to set up a joint command of the armed forces of the signatory states with its headquarters in Moscow. The unified command was to be headed by Konier Marshal of the Soviet Union.

The Defence Ministers or other military leaders of the signatory countries were appointed Deputy Commanders-in-Chief and given command of the armed forces assigned to the unified armed forces by each respective signatory country.

The contracting parties confirmed their striving for the creation of a system of collective security in Europe based on the participation of all European states in respect of their social or state structure which would make it possible to unite their efforts in the interests of ensuring peace in Europe.

They also took into consideration the situation which had arisen in Europe as a result of the ratification of the Paris Agreements envisaging the formation of a new military alignment in the form of West European Union with the participation of West Germany.

That created a threat to the national security of the peace-loving states and it was necessary for them to take measures necessary to safeguard their security. It was declared that the contracting parties were guided by the aims and principles of the United Nations Charter.

The Treaty provided that the contracting parties undertook to abstain in their international relations from threats of violence or its use and settle international disputes by peaceful means. They declared their readiness to cooperate in all international actions for the purpose of assuring international peace and security. They were to strive to reach agreement with the states desiring to cooperate in that cause and take measures to reduce armaments, and the ban of atomic, hydrogen and other kinds of weapons of mass distraction.

The contracting parties were to consult each other on all important international problems affecting their common interests. They were to consult each other immediately in the event of a threat of armed attack against one or other states, signatories to the Pact, in the interests of their ensuring mutual defence and maintaining peace and security.

In case of an armed aggression in Europe against one or several states parties to the treaty by a state or group of states, each state member of the treaty in order to put into practice the right to individual or collective self-defence was to afford to the state or the states which was the object of such an aggression, immediate assistance, individually and in agreement with other states, who were parties to the treaty, with all means which appear necessary including the use of armed forces.

The parties were required to take immediate joint measures necessary to establish and preserve international peace and security. The measures taken by the states were to be stopped as soon as the Security Council took steps for establishing and preserving international peace and security.

The parties agreed to set up a joint command of their armed forces to be allotted by agreement between the parties, at the disposal of this command and used on the basis of jointly established principles. They were also required to take other agreed measures necessary to strengthen their defences in order to protect the peaceful toil of their people guaranteeing the integrity of their frontiers and territories and ensure their defence against possible aggression.

With the object of carrying out consultations provided by the present Treaty among the states participating in the Treaty and for the examination of questions arising in connection with the fulfillment of the Treaty, a Political Consultative Committee was to be set up in each state participating in the Treaty. The Committee was authorised to set up any auxiliary organs it considered to be necessary.

The contracting parties undertook not to enter into any coalition or union and not to enter into any agreements whose aims were contrary to the terms of the Treaty. They declared that they would act in a spirit of friendship and cooperation in order further to develop economic and cultural ties between them and would be guided by the principles of mutual respect and would not interfere in the internal affairs of one another.

The Treaty was to remain in force for twenty years. Those states which did not give notice of abrogation one year before the Treaty expired were to remain bound by it for a further period of ten years. In the event of a system of collective security, being set up in Europe and a Pact to that effect being signed, the present Treaty was to lapse from the date on which a collective security treaty came into force.

The Warsaw Pact, in its essentials, is a carbon copy of the NATO. However, there are certain differences between the two. The Warsaw Pact is open to any state whereas unanimity is required to extend the membership of the NATO. The Warsaw Pact is provisional in the sense that it is to remain in force only until a European collective security system comes into existence.

This is in keeping with the expressed objective of the Pact which is to preserve world peace threatened by the admission of Germany to the NATO. It is true that all the members of the Warsaw Pact are equal m theory but actually that is not so. The freedom enjoyed by the member states varies.

In spite of the dominant position of the United States in the NATO, she does not over-balance the others as overwhelmingly as is the case of the Soviet Union in the Warsaw Pact. Very little, if anything of importance, is added by the Warsaw Pact that is not included in the bilateral treaties between the Soviet Union and five of its members.

Even in the absence of the Warsaw Pact, the relations between the Soviet Union and the other member states would not have differed. It is well known that the Warsaw Pact powers intervened in Hungary in 1956 when there was a revolt in that country. Likewise, they intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968 when that country started following liberal policies.

Rumania is a member of the Warsaw Pact, but the Soviet Union is having a lot of trouble from Mr. Ceausescu who is the Secretary General of the Communist Party in Rumania. The Rumanians are virtually against everything the Russians want to see accomplished in the Warsaw Pact. They want the Warsaw Pact and all other similar military alliances to go. The view of Ceausescu is that the military pacts are an “anachronism” incompatible with the national independence and sovereignty of every country.

Rumania strongly opposes the Soviet schemes of integration of member forces in the alliance and refuses to place her army, air and naval forces under the direct command of the Warsaw Pact Powers. The attitude of Rumania is not liked by the Soviet Union, but she is helpless in the matter. Albania has left the Warsaw Pact and joined hands with Communist China, which at present is the enemy of the Soviet Union.

12. Revolt in Hungary (1956):


In 1956 there was a revolt in Hungary. In order to put it down, the Government of Hungary asked the Soviet Union to send her troops. Her request was accepted by the Soviet Union who sent her troops to Hungary and law and order was restored. The Soviet forces left the Hungarian capital soon after However, trouble started once again and there was a lot of bloodshed. Many persons were murdered. Many leaders were hanged at lamp posts in the streets of Budapest.

The rebels burnt the national museum in Budapest. They became stronger and stronger every day. They smashed the nationalised enterprises and state-owned establishments. There was a general demand for the return of Mr. Nagy who had been arrested earlier. On 30 October 1956, Mr. Nagy declared that they would set up a coalition government of all democratic parties and free elections on the lines of Western democracies would be held. Mr. Nagy was deserted by Mr. Kadar and his other colleagues and a new Hungarian Revolutionary Workers’ and Peasants’ Government was established.

The new Government declared that it would safeguard the democratic achievements of the Hungarian people and defend the people’s democratic system. Kadar’s Government requested the Soviet Union for assistance in putting down the rebellions in the country. The Soviet Union sent her forces to Hungary and the rebels were hunted out and suppressed. Great atrocities were committed on that occasion.

On 4 November 1958 it was declared that the rebels had been completely crushed. Mr. Nagy and many other members of his government were arrested by the Soviet troops. The new Government in Hungary was headed by Kadar who was the first Secretary of the Communist Party. On 4 November 1956, a resolution was moved by the American Government in the Security Council that the Soviet Union must withdraw her troops from Hungary and not interfere in the internal affairs of that country.

That resolution was vetoed by the Soviet Union. An emergency session of the General Assembly was called and a resolution was passed calling upon the Soviet Union to withdraw her troops from Hungary so that free elections could be held under the auspices of the United Nations.

Another resolution was passed by the General Assembly censuring the Soviet Union for her violation of the Charter by depriving Hungary of her liberty and independence and the Hungarian people of their fundamental rights and the Soviet Union was requested to withdraw her troops. However, all those resolutions were ignored by the Soviet Union.

There are two different views with regard to the real nature of the Hungarian revolt of 1956 The Soviet view is that the persons who revolted were Fascists and they were backed by outsiders. The Hungarian Government of Kadar was within its right in putting them down with a heavy hand The Soviet Union performed its obligations under the Warsaw Pact when it sent its troops to Hungary.

The Western view is that the people of Hungary were fed up with the Communist regime which put all kinds of restrictions on their lives and consequently they revoked. The revolt was a spontaneous rising of the people against the tyranny of the Communist regime, and had the backing of most of the people. If the Soviet troops had not gone to Hungary to crush the revolt, the rebels would have been successful in setting up a government of their own choice. The continuation of the Soviet troops in Hungary was also condemned.

13. Soviet Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1968):


There was a Communist Government in power in Czechoslovakia since 1948. From the end of 1967, there was the emergence of a wave of regenerative process in the country. In January 1968 Alexander Dubcek was elected the First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia it was the beginning of a process of liberalisation away from the “Democratic centralism” of the Stalin era.

On 22 March 1968, President Novotny resigned and General Ludvik Svoboda took over as President on 30 March 1968. Liberalising forces began to operate in the country. The press was given a lot of freedom. Censorship was abandoned in the practice. The Central Office for Publication was abolished Respect for minority views within the Communist Party was guaranteed and the members were given the right to criticise official policies at party meetings and also in the press.

The Soviet Union and other members of the Warsaw Pact did not approve of the changes in Czechoslovakia and consequently their relations were strained. A meeting was held in Warsaw in July 1968 in which the situation in Czechoslovakia was described as “completely unacceptable”. Certain demands were made on Czechoslovakia, but those were rejected. Two meetings were held between the Soviet and Czech leaders at Cierna and Bratislava. After the meeting at Cierna, President Svoboda declared, “We will not leave the path we have started out. We shall continue along the road.”

On 28 July 1968, the Pravada warned Czechoslovakia that “time does not wait”. The Warsaw powers addressed a joint letter to the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in which they condemned the new policies being followed by it. The allegations were denied. Ulbricht, the East German Communist leader, visited Czechoslovakia on 12 August 1968 and had long discussions with Mr. Dubcek.

On 16 August 1968, the Pravada accused the anti-Socialist reactionaries of stepping up subversive activities in Czechoslovakia. On 20 August 1968, a special meeting of the Central Committee of the Soviet Union was held at the Kremlin and the same night Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Soviet, Polish, Hungarian, Bulgarian and East German troops and Prague and other Czechoslovak cities were occupied within a few hours.

Many reasons are given for Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. Within the East European defence system, Czechoslovakia is the most vulnerable because she has a boundary along West Germany and Austria which in the event of an East-West conflict leaves her open to a direct attack from the West. If the Western forces occupy Czechoslovakia, that splits the East European defence system into two and provides a direct corridor to Russian soil.

That makes Czechoslovakia the most vital spot for both sides in an East-West war. That is the reason why the Russians feel that they cannot allow any reforms which would lead to a possible weakening of Czechoslovakia’s military relationship with the other members of the Soviet bloc.

The fact that Czechoslovakia borders on two democratic countries, viz., Austria and the German Federal Republic, leaves her exposed to the infiltration of Western influences. Apart from military reasons, the action taken by the Soviet Union was intended to serve as an example of what will happen to other members of the East European Communist States if they pressed for a more democratic system of government.

The rapid changes in Czechoslovakia coupled with open demand for an equal voice in Warsaw Pact organisations convinced the Soviet Union of a danger to communism in Czechoslovakia. On 22 August 1968, the Security Council met to consider the situation arising out of the Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia.

A resolution condemning the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact allies was introduced, but the same was vetoed by the Soviet Union. The Peking Radio condemned the Soviet Union and her allies for their intervention in Czechoslovakia.

The view of Castro of Cuba was that while the military action of the Soviet Union and her allies was a flagrant violation of Czech sovereignty, it was politically right. Rumania demanded an immediate end of the military intervention in Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia also condemned the military intervention in Czechoslovakia.

The attitude of the Soviet Union and her allies was expressed by Gomulka in these words. “Socialist ethics and the principles of inter-nationalism cannot be reduced to sitting back with folded arms when the socialist system is being abolished in a fraternal country”.

In spite of criticism from various quarters, more occupation forces were flown to Prague on 25 August 1968 and according to one estimate, their total number was about 5 lacs. The Soviet Union and her allies were determined to crush all liberal forces in Czechoslovakia. By and by Mr. Dubcek and his friends were removed from their posts and power was put in the hands of those who were prepared to toe the Soviet line. Censorship of the press was reimposed. Czechoslovakia entered into a treaty, with the Soviet Union by which she agreed to the stationing of Soviet troops within her territory.

The treaty is silent regarding the number of troops to be stationed in Czechoslovakia and the period of their stay. The events in Czechoslovakia disturbed the relations between the East and the West. The NATO powers were profoundly disturbed on account of their failure to obtain information about Soviet intervention before it actually took place. The NATO powers warned the Soviet Union against the recurrence of any such action to upset the balance of power in Europe.

14. U-2 Incident (1960):


On 1 May 1960, an American aircraft called U-2, while operating from bases in Pakistan and Turkey crossed into the Soviet territory and penetrated more than 2,000 kilometres. It was shot down by the Soviet Union. That led to a lot of bitterness between the United States and the Soviet Union. The American Government could justify her action on the ground of self-preservation and the extensive Soviet espionage activities and the Soviet Union was justified in shooting down the U-2 and in proceeding against its pilot under criminal law.

15. Cuban Crisis:


It was reported in 1962 that Soviet military equipment had arrived in Cuba along with a large number of technicians and other military personnel. There was a widespread demand in the United States for the establishment of a unilateral Pacific blockade of Cuba. Some demanded the application of the blockade to Russian and other foreign vessels.

A conference of the American Foreign Ministers was held in the beginning of October 1962 in Washington. It was decided to adopt economic and security measures to cope with the Cuban armament build-up. A request was made to the non- Communist states to tighten their control over ships, flying their flags and carrying Soviet goods to Cuba.

The United States closed its ports to all ships carrying arms to Cuba. It also closed its ports to ships sailing between a Communist bloc port and Cuba. It prohibited all vessels registered in the United States from engaging in any manner in Cuban trade.

The West German, Norwegian, Turkish and Japanese lines ordered their ships off the Cuba run. The Council of the Organisation of American States initiated work on further steps designed to isolate Cuba from, the rest of the Western Hemisphere.

It was found from aerial survey that medium range ballistic missiles had been installed in Cuba. It was also found that sites for intermediate range missiles had been constructed in Cuba. That led to a crisis on 22 October 1962, President Kennedy declared the adoption of seven measures.

There was to be a strict “quarantine” on all offensive military equipment bound for Cuba. All ships so bound from whatever nation or port were to be turned back by the American navy if found to be carrying offensive weapons.

There was to be a continued and increased aerial surveillance of Cuba If the offensive build-up continued, other steps were to be taken and the armed forces were directed by the American President to prepare for any eventuality.

It was declared by the American Government that it regarded any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States requiring a foil retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.

The American Government ordered re-enforcement of the garrison of the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo in Cuba from which the American dependants had been evacuated. An urgent meeting of the Organ of Consultation under the Organisation of American States to consider the Cuban situation was ordered.

A request was made for summoning an emergency meeting of the Security Council “to take action against this latest Soviet threat to world peace”. Khrushchev was asked to “halt and eliminate this clandestine, reckless and provocative threat”.

On 23 October 1962, the Organisation of American States decided to take all measures necessary to end the threat to the peace and security of the Western Hemisphere resulting from the military build-up in Cuba.The decision was conveyed to the United Nations. At the same time, the American President issued the Quarantine Proclamation and on 24 October 1962, the same went into effect.

It was first to be implemented by the Naval and Air Force units of the United States. The American Navy actually stopped the Soviet ships which were later on diverted from the Cuba run. U Thant tried to prevail upon the United States to suspend the blockade of Cuba and also asked Khrushchev to halt shipments to Cuba. The Soviet Union proposed to withdraw offensive weapons from Cuba if the American Government withdrew its rockets from Turkey.

The proposal was rejected. Ultimately the Soviet Union agreed to dismantle the Cuban missile sites and transport the missiles back to the Soviet Union and the same was actually done. Aerial surveillance of Cuba continued even after the blockade was lifted.

It must be admitted that there was an imminent danger of a world war on the occasion of the Cuban crisis and the same was averted on account of the enormous restraint shown by Khrushchev at that critical juncture. He withdrew from the conflict in spite of criticism from Communist China.

16. Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1963):


The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Conference met at Geneva from October 1958 to April 1961 and Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union took part in its discussions. It was agreed that all tests m the earth’s atmosphere, in outer space, in ocean and underground should be stopped except those producing signals of less than 4.75 seismic intensity as it was difficult to detect them. The annual inspections were to be limited to three in future, though originally the United States insisted on 20 inspections in a year.

The treaty was to be enforced by a worldwide detective system operated by a single neutral administrator and an international staff Control ports were to be set up on land and ships at sea to detect illegal tests by their sound and light, radio waves, nuclear radia­tion, radio-active debris or earth shocks. Unfortunately, certain differences arose and negotiations came to an abrupt end.

The Three-Power Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was initialed on 25 July 1963 in Moscow and formally signed on 5 August 1963. It provided for a limited ban on nuclear tests in the atmosphere beyond its limits, including outer space or underwater, including territorial waters or high seas. It covered all tests except those underground as no fool-proof method had yet been evolved for detecting underground tests.

The treaty was to be open to all states for signatures. Each party was given the right to withdraw from the treaty after giving a notice of three months. The treaty was welcomed by all the nations of the world as it was likely to reduce tension.

It was the first agreement between the East and the West and India was the first to sign it. France refused to sign it because that was likely to halt her nuclear programme. Communist China also refused to sign the treaty and condemned the Soviet Union for entering into an anti-Chinese alliance with the United States and selling out the interests of its own people and other Communist countries.

17. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968):


On 12 June 1968, the General Assembly passed a resolution by which it recommended the adoption of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Certain members of the United Nations abstained from voting while certain others voted for the resolution with reservations. President Johnson of the United States appeared before the General Assembly and personally urged the members to adopt the Treaty.

He asserted that the Treaty in question went far to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and committed the Nuclear Powers to redouble their efforts to end the nuclear arms race. It also ensured the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the nuclear powers agreed not to transfer their nuclear weapons or control over them to any non-nuclear power or to provide assistance in producing weapons. Under the Treaty, the nuclear powers will have full liberty to develop and multiply their nuclear weapons. Restriction was only on the non-nuclear powers. However, the nuclear powers could give their nuclear know-how to non-nuclear powers for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

Steps were to be taken to prevent the diversion of peaceful nuclear establishments to military use. No provision was made for the control and inspection of nuclear establishments.

After the passing of the resolution by the General Assembly, a demand was made that the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain should make a declaration that they would protect the aggrieved party in the event of an attack by nuclear power. The result was that a declaration to that effect was made by these powers on 17 June 1968.

It was declared that “Any state which commits aggression accompanied by the use of nuclear weapons or which threatens such aggression, must be aware that these actions are to be countered effectively by measures to be taken in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to suppress the aggression or to remove the threat of aggression.” On 19 June 1968, a resolution to that effect was also adopted by the Security Council.

France and Communist China refused to associate themselves with the Treaty. France was going on with her nuclear programme and the same was the case with China. Peking described the Treaty as “a fraud jointly hatched by the United States and the Soviet Union as an anti-Chinese plot.”

It described the assurances against aggression as a means of turning other countries into docile “protectorates” and promoting “encirclement” of China, by providing India with a “nuclear umbrella”. Chen Yi, Foreign Minister of China, condemned the Treaty as “out and out unequal treaty”, a tactics of “power politics being played by big nations”, and a “serious plot all calculated to protect “Big Powers’ nuclear monopoly”. The Treaty had given nuclear powers the surest way to blackmail. Non-proliferation without nuclear disarmament would help technologically advanced nations to fight others under far more favourable conditions. India also refused to sign the Treaty.

18. Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (1972):


On 26 May 1972, two agreements were signed in Moscow by President Nixon and Communist Party Chief Brezhnev. Those agreements were the Treaty on Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems and the “Interim Agreement on Certain Measures with respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.” The Treaty on the limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile System is of unlimited duration, but the Interim Agreement is for five years.

The ABM Treaty limits the United States and the Soviet Union to two sites for ballistic missile defences, one to protect their national capital areas and the other to protect a field of ICBMs. Article III lays down in detail the dimensions of the two ABM systems the two countries can have. Limited to a deployment area of 150 km radius, each one of the systems will have no more than 100 ABM launchers and no more than 100 ABM interceptor missiles at launch sites.

The national capital area complex will have no more than six ABM-radar complexes, each with a diameter not exceeding 3 km. The complex around the missile launching force will have no more than 18 ABM radars, and two large-phased array ABM radars. Under the Treaty the United States will be able to continue the construction of the safeguard complex at Grant Forks’ ND and will start development on an ABM system for Washington.

The Soviet Union will enlarge its 64 missile Galosh system now defending Moscow and add a protective shield to one of their missile sites. Under Article V, both parties have undertaken not to develop, test or deploy the ABM systems or components which are sea-based, air-based, space-based or mobile land-based. They have also undertaken neither to deploy ABM launchers which will launch more than one interceptor missile at a time for each launcher, nor to provide already developed launchers with a capability.

Development testing or deployment of automatic, semi-automatic or other similar systems for rapid reload of ABM launchers is also prohibited. Article VI stipulates prohibition on giving other air defence systems anti-ballistic missile intercepting capability. However, modernisation and replacement of ABM systems or their components is allowed, subject to the quantitative ceiling provided for in Article VII of the Treaty.

The Interim Agreement is a complex accord covering both land-based ICBMs and submarine launched ballistic missiles. For the construction of fixed land-based ICBMs, the cut-off date is 1 July 1972. It means a numerical freeze on ICBMs in the Soviet inventory on 1,618 and the American inventory at 1,054. Article 11 provides that the parties “undertake not to convert land-based launchers tor light ICBMs or for ICBMs of older types deployed prior to 1964 into land-based launchers for heavy ICBMs of types deployed after that time.”

With regard to the submarine launched ballistic missile launchers and modem ballistic missile submarines, the Agreement stipulates a freeze on the numbers m operation and under construction as on 28 May 1972. The agreement does not forbid modernisation and replacement within these stipulated numerical limits of strategic offensive weapons.

The two countries are allowed to improve the accuracy, size and penetration capabilities of their warheads as well as to increase the total number of warheads through MIRV-ing. Both countries have agreed with regard to the procedure to be followed for verification.

It is for the first time that the freedom of spy satellites to move about the skies of another country has been guaranteed and the parties have agreed neither to interfere with the means of verification of each other nor to undertake deliberate measures of concealment which hinder verification.

To consider the questions which arise concerning compliance with the agreements, there is a provision for the establishment of a Standing Consultative Commission. It is also to be used to promote the objectives and implementation of the provisions of the Interim Agreement.

It will not only provide a forum for the voluntary exchange of information between the parties to assure confidence but will also consider possible changes in the strategic situation and discuss appropriate proposals for further measures aimed at limiting strategic arms. There is also an undertaking between the two countries to continue active negotiations for limitations on strategic offensive arms.

19. Washington Agreements (1973):


President Nixon had visited Moscow in 1972 and Brezhnev paid a return visit in June 1973. The talks between the two leaders started on 18 June 1973 in Washington. At the very outset they both pledged themselves to work for a lasting world peace and to speed up negotiations to end the nuclear arms race between the two countries.

They also pledged themselves to work in earnestness to reach an agreement on all matters in their Summit talks. Brezhnev declared that the result of the first Soviet-American Summit talks in Moscow “laid a good and sound base for peaceful relations between our countries”.

President Nixon and Brezhnev signed on 21 June 1973 an agreement committing their countries to negotiate before the end of the next year a treaty calling for reduction of nuclear weapons. They also signed an agreement calling for intensified Soviet-American cooperation in nuclear power research with the objective of ultimately harnessing the power of H-Bomb to produce badly needed electricity.

The accord on the basic principles concerning the SALT negotiations aimed at speeding up the second phase of the talks dealing with qualitative limitations on offensive nuclear weapons.

On 22 June 1973, the two leaders signed an agreement undertaking to do everything possible to avoid nuclear war not only between the two countries but also with third nations. In the 8-pomt agreement, the United States and the Soviet Union undertook to hold urgent consultations any time a risk of nuclear war arose in the world so as to eliminate the risk. President Nixon was invited to visit Moscow in 1974 and he accepted the invitation.

The next year’s Summit was to provide a forum for the signing of a treaty permanently limiting the offensive nuclear arsenals of the two countries under guidelines. The two nations agreed as a matter of principle that efforts by one or the other to obtain a nuclear advantage would be inconsistent with the goal of strengthening peaceful relations. The agreement was intended to expedite the negotiations going on at Geneva between the two countries.

The arms limitation envisaged by the end of the next year included not only the numbers but also the quality of the missiles themselves. The two leaders agreed that limitation on strategic offensive arms must be subject to “adequate verification”. Both nations were to be free to modernise and replace weapons only under conditions to be agreed upon at Geneva.

The two leaders also signed a 10-year pact to expand cooperation between the two countries on peaceful uses of atomic. The major Las of the joint arms effort included controlling thermo-nuclear fusion, research on “fast-feeder” reactors which create more fuel than consumed and research in the fundamental properties of physical matters. At the end of the Summit talks, a joint communique was issued on 25 June 1973.

20. Moscow Summit (1974):


During his visit to the Soviet Union in June-July 1974, President Nixon agreed with Brezhnev to limit underground testing for 5 years, but the restriction was to go into effect in 1976. The two countries agreed to restrict themselves to a single anti-ballistic missile system instead of two.

They also agreed that the existing ban on some offensive weapons will be followed by a new agreement between them and that agreement should cover the period until 1985 and “deal with both quantitative and qualitative limitations”.

It was agreed that such an agreement should be completed at the earliest possible date. The new agreement was to try to limit both newer lines of weapons including missiles with multiple warheads and the numbers being deployed. The two countries also signed two protocols which regulate replacement, dismantling or the destruction of strategic armaments if these questions arise in the course of the implementation of the treaty limiting missile system and the interim agreement limiting offensive nuclear weapons.

21. Vladivostok Summit (November 1974):


As President Nixon had to resign on account of the Watergate Scandal, President Ford and Brezhnev met at Vladivostok in November 1974 and a U.S.-Soviet Agreement on guidelines for a 10-year “cap on the arms race” was reached. The two leaders agreed on a limit on the number of such offensive nuclear weapons as missiles launched from land, sea and air, bombers and multiple war-head missiles.

The new agreement enabled the two countries to begin work not only on limiting nuclear arms, but also on reducing them. Both sides were allowed to have a certain agreed number of strategic delivery vehicles. They also agreed to have a certain aggregate number of ICBMs and SLBMs (submarines launched ballistic missiles) equipped with multiple independently targetable war-heads.

A Peace Conference on security and cooperation in Europe was held at Helsinki and the representatives of 32 European countries and the United States and Canada participated in it. That conference ended in June 1973 after a “Collective Agreement” on an agenda for the coming Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The Collective Agreement on the agenda was considered to be the first step in the transformation of Europe by the establishment of cooperative co-existence between the European Communists and the West and meaningful collaboration in economic scientific and cultural fields. The agreement on the agenda laid the foundation for the substantial negotiations that were to come.

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe began at Helsinki on 3 July 1973 It was attended by the representatives of 35 countries. There was a spirit of peaceful cooperation between the East and the West. Without dissent the Foreign Ministers adopted an Agenda that eventually would expand “human contacts” within the Warsaw Pact nations.

The main task of the Conference was to approve the agenda drawn after six months of negotiations and appoint Committees to work out the agreement on the four items security, scientific, economic, environmental and technological cooperation, including freer human contacts and dissemination of information and follow-up measures.

22. Helsinki Conference (1975):


The 35-Nations Summit Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe opened on 30 July 1975 at Helsinki and concluded on 1 August 1975. It was attended by President Ford Brezhnev Prime Minister Wilson and others. Towards the end of the Conference, a Charter was signed by the participating States. The signatories agreed to “respect each other’s right freely to choose and develop its political, social, economic and agricultural systems as well as its right to determine its laws and regulations”.

There are two parts of the Charter. One governs the conduct of the countries in their intercourse with other countries and the other deals with their relations with their own citizens. While undertaking to respect the sovereign equality and rights of other nations, the signatories also pledged themselves to respect human rights. They re-affirmed their “objective of promoting better relations among themselves and ensuring conditions in which their people can live in true and lasting peace”.

They guaranteed the inviolability of their frontiers and “right of peoples to equality and self-determination”. The other highlights of the agreements were peaceful settlement of disputes by refraining from threat or use of force, non-intervention in internal affairs, cooperation among them and fulfillment in good faith of obligations under international law. The signatories agreed to notify all other States of major military manoeuvres deploying more than 15,000 troops.

They recognised the interest of all of them “in efforts aimed at lessening military confrontation and promoting disarmament which are designed to complement political detente in Europe and to strengthen their security” They agreed to hold meetings in Belgrade and other places. The meeting was held at Belgrade between October 1977 & March 1978 but there was no further progress in the matter except the reaffirmation of the agreement of Helsinki.

On 18 May 1977, a Convention on Prohibition of Military or other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques was signed at Geneva. It aimed at consolidation of peace and halting of arms race with a view to bring about general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

SALT-1 was valid for five years and it expired in October 1977. The Super Powers engaged themselves m coming to terms with SALT-2. President Jimmy Carter of the United States and President Brezhnev met at Vienna in June 1979 to put their signatures on a comprehensive SALT-2 treaty.

However, that treaty was never ratified by the United States as President Reagan refused to endorse it on the ground that it conferred extra advantages on the Soviet Union and did not fully safeguard the interests of the United States. In 1982, President Reagan suggested the commencement of a new set of consultations called “START” (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks).

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force talks were broken off by the Russians on 23 November 1983 just after NATO installed the first of its new medium-range cruise and Pershing-2 missiles in Europe. Those warhead NATO missiles were a reply to the Russian triple warhead SS-22 which they started deploying in 1977. The Russians came back to the negotiating table in January 1985.

On 25 April 1985 the Soviet Union decided to suspend the deployment of its intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe and implementation of other measures in reply to the NATO deployment of cruise and Pershing-2 missiles, but the United States did not reverse the process of missile deployment in Europe which she was able to initiate after great difficulty.

The Super Powers began their talks about nuclear arms control again in early 1985 after a pause of 14 months. The leaders of the two delegations were the soul of courtesy but they admitted that the talks would be extremely difficult and protracted.

There was a two-day Summit at Geneva on 19 and 20 November 1985 between US President Reagan and Soviet leader Gorbachev. In a joint statement issued after the end of negotiations, the two leaders acknowledged that serious differences persisted between them on vital issues. However, they affirmed that “any conflict between the USSR and the USA would have catastrophic consequences.” They said that they would not seek to achieve military superiority and emphasized the importance of preventing any war between them. The two leaders agreed to accelerate nuclear arms control negotiations and to meet again “in the nearest future.” Gorbachev accepted an invitation from President Reagan to visit the United States and President Reagan agreed to visit the Soviet Union.

A summit meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan was held at Reykjavik on 12 and 13 October 1986. The United States and the Soviet Union were close to a major agreement on nuclear disarmament when the summit broke down over the US refusal to yield on its Star War research. Gorbachev stated that the two sides were about to agree on a plan to cut strategic weapons by 50% in five years, eliminate medium-range missiles in Europe and reduce the number of warheads on Soviet medium- range missiles in Asia to 100. While Gorbachev demanded that those cuts be linked to a ban on Star War research outside the laboratory, Reagan rejected it outright. Both sides blamed each other for the failure of the summit.

23. The Schuman Plan:


Originally proposed by the French Foreign Ministry, the Schuman Plan was intended to create a single market for coal and steel for all European countries willing to participate and accept the principle of supra-national control.

Only five countries responded. Negotiations continued and ultimately on 18 April 1951, a convention setting up the European Coal and Steel Community was signed by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy and West Germany.

The convention was ratified in 1952 and the single market was opened in 1953. The object of the European Coal and Steel Community was to contribute to economic expansion and development of employment and improvement of the standard of living in the participating countries through the establishment of a Common Market. Article 4 prohibited and abolished within the community import and export duties, charges on the movement of coal and steel, measures or practices discriminating among purchasers, buyers and consumers regarding prices, etc., subsidies or state assistance in any form whatsoever and restrictive trade practices tending towards division of markets or exploitation of markets.

The institutions of the Community were the High Authority, the Consultative Committee, the Common Assembly, a Special Council and a Court of Justice. The Schuman Plan was a bold, far-reaching and in many ways an original attempt to overcome the dilemma of balancing the necessity of closer economic and political integration of Western Europe against the impossibility of introducing at one stroke a supra-national government.

The plan provided for a careful delicate balance between international authority and national sovereignty. The economic and social provisions of the Treaty show a very complex and delicate balance between the conflicting pulls. One of the most progressive provisions of the Treaty is the unqualified prohibition of national discrimination regarding employment in the coal and steel industries. The object is to guarantee a free flow of workers among the member- states which means a revolution in traditional immigration policies. The Plan is an epoch-making experiment in international relations.

24. European Common Market:


The tremendous success of the European Coal and Steel Community prompted the six states to link themselves still further economically. In 1955, they decided on the formation of the European Economic Community. On 25 March 1957, the Treaty of Rome was signed, and it was decided to form a European Common Market which came into being on 1 January 1958. It is a further step towards the economic and political integration of Europe.

The main objectives of the European Common Market were the abolition of tariff restrictions on imports and exports, the adoption of a common customs tariff and trade policy, elimination of all barriers to the free circulation of persons, services and capital and the creation of a European Investment Fund to facilitate the economic development of the Community.

A common customs tariff and a common commercial policy were to be followed towards the non-member countries. It was expected that the European Economic Community would lead to the political integration of Europe and ultimately the United States of Europe would be born.

The European Common Market functions through the Council of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly, Court of Justice and the Executive Commission. Great Britain hesitated to join the European Common Market and that was due to the fact that she had not suffered the same disillusionment and political convulsion before and during the War as the states of continental Europe. There was also the aversion of the British to any written Constitution and particularly one which was likely to disturb the unwritten Constitution of their own country.

There was also the belief that the true interests of Great Britain lay more with the Commonwealth countries and the United States than with continental Europe. There was also a psychological distrust of the dilettante politics of those European enthusiasts who wished to transform Europe with mere speeches in the Parliamentary assemblies.

As a matter of fact, Great Britain formed another organisation known as the European Free Trade Association consisting of Great Britain, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland. All these countries agreed upon a plan at Stockholm in November 1959. Unfortunately, this organisation was not a success. Great Britain was very much impressed by the record of the achievements of the European Common Market, whose members had made more progress than those of the European Free Trade Association.

The result was that Great Britain applied for the membership of the European Common Market, but the same was refused on account of opposition from General de Gaulle of France, who was not prepared to allow his position to be challenged by Great Britain in Europe. There was disappointment in Great Britain. However, she persisted in her efforts to join the European Common Market and ultimately she joined the same in January 1973.

25. The Soviet Union and China:


In 1949, the Communists were also to drive out Chiang Kai-shek and his government from the mainland of China and a Communist Government was set up with Peking as its headquarters. To begin with, the Soviet Union gave a lot of economic and military help to Communist China. On 14 February 1950 was signed a “Treaty regarding Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Aid between the Soviet Socialist Republics and Chinese People’s Republic.”

In that Treaty the two countries declared their readiness in the spirit of sincere cooperation to participate in all international actions aimed at securing peace and security throughout the world. The Treaty bound the parties to prevent “the resumption of aggression and violation of peace on the part of Japan or any other power which would unite with Japan directly or in any other form in acts of aggression.”

Any power that would use Japanese territory as a base of operation against the Soviet Union or China would logically come within the purview of the Treaty obligation. Article 5 of the Treaty guaranteed the sovereignty of each state from any interference from each other in the execution of any undertaking covered by the Treaty.

It was declared that all actions under the Treaty had to be performed in the spirit of friendship and co-operation in conformity with the principles of equality, mutual interest and also mutual respect for state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and non-interference in the internal affairs of the other party.

” The two countries agreed to cooperate with each other in all important international questions and to develop and strengthen economic and cultural ties between them. The Soviet Union has also made a number of concessions to China in the Far East. She promised a loan over a period of five years to the tune of $300 million.

Under this Treaty, not less than 141 enterprises were set up in China under the joint boards of management, half Russian and half Chinese. Thousands of Chinese students attended the universities in the Soviet Union to get their training. The Chinese army was modernised and expanded with Soviet help. On 31 December 1953, the Soviet Union agreed to give up her property rights in Manchurian Railways.

The Soviet Union also agreed to leave Port Arthur by a Treaty negotiated in October 1954. This Treaty also provided for a Russian credit amounting to about a billion roubles. The Soviet Union also agreed to give up its shares in the mixed companies.

However, friendship between the Soviet Union and Communist China did not last long and differences arose between the two countries. Admittedly, the Soviet Union is a Euro-Asian Power and China only an Asian Power and the interests of the two are bound to be different and there was always the possibility of a clash. Communist China would not like the Soviet Union to dominate South-East Asia and such a proposition would not be acceptable to the Soviet Union.

There are also certain ideological differences between the two countries. When Khrushchev came to power, he initiated a new policy of peaceful co-existence between capitalism and socialism. He believed that the Communists could beat the capitalists in competition. He was not prepared to risk a nuclear war.

This new policy of Khrushchev was condemned by Communist China under Mao Tse-tung and Chou-En- lai. The Chinese leaders believed in a policy of revolution and fight to the finish against capitalism. They believed in the complete destruction of capitalism. No wonder, the new Soviet policy was not acceptable to the Chinese and they accused Khrushchev of cowardice and revisionism.

The differences between the two countries came to the fore in 1958 and by 1959 the Chinese began to attack the Soviet policy indirectly. Two important meetings were held in 1961, one at Bucharest and the other in Moscow. In the Twenty-second Party Congress held in Moscow in 1961, Khrushchev attacked the Albanian Communist Party which was receiving support from the Chinese Government.

When Khrushchev started his drive against Stalinism, the same was not approved of by the Chinese Government. Communist China condemned Khrushchev in 1962 on the occasion of the Cuban crisis and the virtual surrender of the Soviet Union before the United States. The pro-India policy of the Soviet Union was also condemned by China. The result of all these things was that Russia withdrew all support from Communist China and both the countries became open enemies.

When in October 1964, Khrushchev was removed, it was hoped that the relations between the two countries might improve. As a matter of fact, many conciliatory moves were made by Kosygin to win over Communist China but without any result. The relations between the two countries were further strained when Vietnam intervened in Kampuchea in January 1979 and Russia intervened in Afghanistan in December 1979.

However, President Brezhnev declared in 1981 that the Soviet Union was ready to negotiate an all-round improvement in her relations with China. In March 1982, Moscow sent feelers and Beijing reciprocated. The process of reconciliation was continued by Yuri Andropove, Chemenko and Gorbachev. The change in China’s foreign policy after the death of Chou En-lai and Mao Tse-tung in 1976 has also helped the process of reconciliation.

26. The United States and Communist China:


In spite of American help, Chiang Khai-shek was driven out from the Chinese mainland in 1949 and he took shelter in Formosa (Taiwan). The Communists would have liked to complete their victory by capturing Formosa also, but the United States stood in their way. In July 1950, the Chinese Communists seemed to be getting ready to attack Formosa. For two days, their shore batteries shelled the Quemoy Island which is three miles off the mainland of Amoy.

However, President Truman neutralised Formosa by posting the Seventh Fleet in between so that neither Formosa was attacked by the Chinese Communists nor the Chinese Communists under Chiang Khai-shek attacked the Chinese mainland. This state of affairs continued up to January 1953 when President Eisenhower cancelled the order of President Truman and issued instructions that the Seventh Fleet would no longer be employed to shield Communist China.

Nationalist China was thus given freedom to attack the Chinese mainland and Chinese Communists were allowed to attack, if they pleased Formosa. The plea of Eisenhower was that the American Navy could not be allowed to be used to serve as a defensive system of Communist China. Chou En-lai, the Chinese Premier, gave a challenge to the American Government that the Communist were going to liberate Formosa in spite of American help The challenge was accepted by President Eisenhower.

On many occasions, attempts were made by the Chinese Communists to bomb the Islands in the neighborhood of Formosa, but they did not dare to attack the Islands of Formosa. The United States entered into a military pact with the Government of Chiang Kai-shek and pledged herself to come to her help if the Island of Formosa was attacked The Chinese Communists knew full well that an attack on Formosa would mean a war with the United States. It was such a high stake that both Communist China and the Soviet Union, in spite of their repeated declarations, were not prepared to take the risk.

When the Korean War started in June 1950, the United States at once came to the help of South Korea. A resolution was passed by the United Nations branding North Korea as the aggressor North Korea was helped openly by Communist China and indirectly by the Soviet Union. Communist China sent lakhs of volunteers to help the people of North Korea.

There was every possibility of a war between the United Nations on the one hand and Communist China on the other. However General MacArthur was not allowed to cross the 38th Parallel and he himself was removed from the United Nations Command.

The part played by the United States in the Korean War was bound to embitter the relations, between Communist China and the United States. In 1962 Communist China attacked India. The Government of India requested the American Government to help her and President Kennedy openly came forward to help India against Communist China, t was partly due to American help to India which forced Communist China to stay her hands and declare unilateral cease-fire inNovemberl962.

The American Government helped India to prepare herself against the Chinese attack in the future and this alienated Communist China against the United States. Communist China helped North Vietnam against South Vietnam which was backed by the United States. That also embittered the relations between the two countries. For more than two decades the United States opposed the entry of Communist China into the United Nations. She also refused to recognise her.

There was bitterness between the two countries. It is true that earlier also efforts had been made by the United States to establish contacts with Communist China, but not much had come out of them. It was in 1971 that Dr. Kissinger paid a secret visit to Peking via Pakistan It was after that visit that it was declared that President Nixon would pay a visit to Communist China. China was admitted into the United Nations on 26 October 1971 with American help. Elaborate preparations were made and ultimately President Nixon actually went to Communist China in February 1972.

At the end of his visit, a joint communique was issued in which it was stated that President Nixon had a serious and frank exchange of views on Sino-U.S. relations and world a flairs. Extensive, earnest and frank discussions were held between President Nixon and Premier Chou En-lai on the normalisation of relations between the two countries as well as other matters of interest common to both sides In the communique both states stated their separate points of view with regard to Indo-China Korea Japan, India Pakistan, Vietnam, Loas and Cambodia.

The American Government accepted the contention of China that the liberation of Taiwan was an internal affair of China in which no other country had a right to interfere and all U.S. forces and military installations must be withdrawn from Taiwan.

The United States admitted that there was but one China and Taiwan was a part of China. The United States also admitted that a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question was to be made by the Chinese themselves and the United States would withdraw all her forces and military installations from Taiwan in the long run. The two countries agreed to facilitate the progressive development of trade between the two countries. They also agreed to maintain contacts through various channels.

In February 1973, Dr. Kissinger visited Peking to explore further avenues of mutual cooperation. In March 1973, David Bruce was sent to Peking. In August 1977, Mr. Cyrus Vance, the US Secretary of State, visited China. President Carter agreed to derecognise Taiwan and bury the two-China theory. This led to the abrogation of the US-Taiwan Treaty of 1955 in 1979. This was very much appreciated by China.

Deng Xiao-ping paid an official visit to the United States in January 1979. President Reagan visited China in 1984. On 23 July 1985, the United States and China signed a nuclear pact.

The Jewish state of Israel was proclaimed at Tel Aviv on 15 May 1948 and was recognised simultaneously by the United States and the Soviet Union. However, this was not liked by the Arab states and they joined hands to attack the new-born state. In spite of their superiority in numbers, the Jews were able to beat back the Arabs. After many efforts, some kind of truce was established on all the fronts by July 1949.

When Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal in 1956, Great Britain and France joined hands with Israel to attack Egypt. There was bitter fighting and ultimately the war was brought to a close on account of a threat of intervention held out by the Soviet Union.

The relations between Israel and the Arab States were most unsatisfactory. There was bitterness on both sides. In January 1965, certain water installations were dynamited on the Israel side of the Jordan border. Many raids were organised by Al-Fateh against Israel. That state of affairs continued for about two years. A joint defence pact was signed between Egypt and Syria by which it was provided that an attack on one would be considered as an attack on the other.

In November 1966, Israel presented a complaint of “acts of aggression” by Syria to the Security Council. In the same month, Israel launched her biggest offensive against Jordan. A meeting of the Security Council was summoned on the complaint of Jordan and the state of Israel was condemned for her attack. In April 1967, Israel attacked Syria and did a lot of damage. In May 1967, heavy Egyptian troop movements were reported out of Cairo. President Nasser requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to withdraw the United Nations Emergency Force which was a sort of barrier between Egypt and Israel.

The Secretary-General withdrew the Emergency Force. After that, President Nasser closed the Gulf of Aqaba to all Israeli ships. It was proclaimed that the waters of the Tirana Strait belonged to Egypt. War seemed to be imminent.

It was under these circumstances that Israel attacked Egypt on 4 June 1967, and destroyed a large number of her aircraft. Although many Muslim states declared war against Israel, the main strain of war was on Egypt, Syria and Jordan. War lasted for about a week and the Arabs were completely defeated. Cease-fire was declared in compliance with a resolution of the Security Council.

Many years passed away and there was no peace. Both parties were determined to fight it out. Israel was not prepared to evacuate the territories conquered and occupied by her during the war of 1967.

There was a lot of violence due to the activities of the Arab guerillas. There was a marked change in the situation on account of the new Soviet policy towards the Arab states. The Soviet Union agreed to give and eventually gave Egypt what she required to fight against Israel.

The result was that the Egyptians made thorough preparations for a war against Israel and also succeeded in getting solid support from the other Arab countries. Israel was attacked all of a sudden in October 1973 by Egypt. Syria also joined the war.

There was a lot of destruction and ultimately through, the good offices of the United States, a cease-fire was declared. That cease-fire proved ineffective and war started again. There was another cease-fire and a negotiated peace settlement between Egypt and Israel. Israel agreed to evacuate the Sinai territory provided American observers were stationed on the spot to maintain peace between the two countries.

27. The Congo Crisis:


The Congo was formerly a dependency of Belgium. When it was declared independent on 30 June 1960, it was absolutely unprepared to shoulder the responsibilities which independence brought in its wake. The former government had done nothing to train the people of Congo in the field of administration. There were not more than a dozen graduates in the whole of the country Not a sing e Congolese was holding any senior administrative post in the country.

Medical services were entirely under the control of Belgian doctors. Education was a monopoly of the Catholic Church Trade and business was in the hands of Belgian capitalists and their European and American collaborators.

Congolese army was officered by Belgians. Even before the grant of independence o the people of Congo in June 1960, an Economic Conference had been held at Brussels in April 1960, and it was attended by the representatives of both Belgium and the Congo.

Unfortunately the delegation from Congo did not include the important political personalities of that country and hence the recommendations of the Conference were rejected by the Government of Congo after her independence Elections were held in May 1960 to the Chamber of Representatives, the Lower House of the future Congolese Parliament.

Elections were also held in the six Provincial Legislatures at the same time. Provincial Legislatures elected the members of the National Senate. Even before the holding of elections, there was disorder and violence in various parts of the country, and the same state of affairs continued after the elections.

A state of emergency was declared, from time to time to meet the situation. In the Katanga Province, powerful Belgian business houses and the Catholic Church interfered in the elections on the side of those personalities and political parties which were favourably inclined towards Belgium.

When the elections were over, it was found that no political party had an absolute majority. However, the Congolese National Movement led by Patrice Lumumba emerged as the stronger single party in the Chamber of Representatives, having secured 41 seats out of 137 seats. This party had also seats m all the Provincial Legislatures. It dominated Parliament in Eastern province and controlled one-third of total seats in Kasai.

The Congokat Party of Katanga led by Tshombe was not able to get even seat in the Parliament. The Abako Party of Katanga was able to secure 12 seats. Lumumba’s party was not the strongest single party in the Senate. It is true that Lumumba had no absolute majority in the Legislatures, but he was able to form a coalition with other parties and thereby formed the Ministry.

On 2 June 1960, Mr. Lumumba declared at a Press Conference that the Belgian officers were trying to stand in the way of his becoming Premier and he demanded the immediate withdrawal of all Belgian troops from the Congo.

There were difficulties both at the Centre and in the provinces to form ministries. Efforts were made to separate Lumumba and Kasavubu and make them fight against each other. However, as a result of a compromise Lumumba formed his Cabinet on 28 June 1960 and Kasavubu was elected President of the Republic of Congo.

Fresh difficulties arose from the side of Kalonji and Tshombe. Kalonji demanded three seats in the Ministry and when his demand was not accepted, he declared himself at the King of Independent South Kasai State. On being instigated by the Belgian Government and the local foreign businessmen, Tshombe also declared himself President of the Free Katanga State. To make matters worse, the Belgian Government sent her troops to the Congo.

The Government of Belgium did not care for the protests of the Congo government. Southern Rhodesia also helped Tshombe. Lumumba appealed to the United Nations for help and also requested the Belgian Government to withdraw her troops immediately. On 13 July 1960, the Soviet Union declared that Belgium and other Western powers were trying to exploit the Congo and that would lead to disastrous consequences.

An emergency session of the Security Council was called but it failed to take any decision. Lumumba threatened to invite Russian troops to turn out the Belgians from the Congo and also put an end to the secession of Katanga.

The Security Council met again and a resolution was passed calling upon the Belgian Government to withdraw all her troops. A promise was made to Congo for military assistance to maintain law and order. The Secretary General visited Congo and Katanga but refused to use the troops of the United Nations to suppress the Katangan secession.

In the meanwhile, President Kasavubu and Prime Minister Lumumba quarrelled with each other. Kasavubu dismissed Lumumba and Lumumba dismissed Kasavubu. However, the Congolese Senate cancelled both the orders. Col. Mobutu took advantage of the situation and seized power in September 1960.

In alliance with Kasavubu, Mobutu placed Lumumba under house arrest. On 2 December 1960, Lumumba was captured by Mobutu’s troops while attempting to escape to Stanleyville. Kasavubu and his aides handed over Lumumba to Tshombe and Lumumba was cruelly murdered on 1 February 1961.

To resolve the problem of Katanga UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold flew to Northern Rhodesia for peace talks, but he was killed in an air crash on 18 September 1961. U Thant, the new Secretary-General, took firm action against Tshombe which resulted in his surrender and thus the secession of Katanga ended. In July 1964, Tshombe became Prime Minister of the Congo, but later on he was dismissed in 1965. In November 1965, Kasavubu was overthrown by Mobutu in a bloodless coup. Mobutu resorted to forceful methods to curb tribalism and personal political rivalries.

28. Southern Rhodesia:


Great Britain granted independence to Northern Rhodesia but not to Southern Rhodesia as there was a large number of Whites of British origin. On 11 November 1965, the White minority in Southern Rhodesia declared its independence unilaterally.

It was a serious challenge to British authority and the declaration of independence was declared illegal by the British Government. Both the General Assembly and the Security Council condemned Southern Rhodesia for her action.

In January 1966, a meeting of the Commonwealth countries wars held at Lagos, capital of Nigeria, to decide upon the steps to be taken against the government of Southern Rhodesia headed by Ian Smith.

In December 1966, the Security Council applied selective mandatory economic sanctions against Southern Rhodesia. In May 1968, the Security Council imposed comprehensive mandatory sanctions and also set up a Sanctions Committee to see to their enforcement.

In 1969, it was reported that in spite of the sanctions there was going on a lot of trade between Southern Rhodesia on the one hand and Portugal and South Africa on the other. An attempt was made in June 1969 to censure Portugal and South Africa, but it failed. Southern Rhodesia declared herself a Republic in 1970.

On that occasion, the Security Council passed a resolution condemning the Government of Southern Rhodesia and also called upon the member states to cut off all diplomatic, consular, trade, military and other relations with the Republic of Southern Rhodesia. Many attempts were made by Prime Minister Wilson to come to a settlement with Ian Smith, but nothing came out of them and the deadlock continued.

In 1971, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, Foreign Minister of England, and Ian Smith entered into a constitutional arrangement by which the majority rule was to be restored in the distant future. In order to find out the reactions of the people, the Pearce Commission was appointed and it submitted its report in May 1972. The proposals were rejected by the Africans and the stalemate continued.

There was a lot of tension on the question of Southern Rhodesia. The African States made it clear that they would leave no stone unturned to overthrow the government of Ian Smith even by force. The American Government made it clear that it would not help Southern Rhodesia against the African States. The British Government also advised Ian Smith to come to a settlement.

Negotiations continued in an atmosphere of great tension. Dr. Kissinger played an important part in bringing about a compromise. On 24 September 1976, Prime Minister Ian Smith announced at Salisbury that his White minority Government would surrender power to the black majority within two years. That announcement was made by Smith under pressure from the United States and the British Government.

It was made clear to him that he would get no help unless he accepted the solution arrived at. A Conference was held at Geneva to finalise the matter. There was a wide divergence of views with regard to the date on which the transfer of power was to take place. Ultimately on 15 November 1976, 1 March 1978 was fixed as the deadline for the transfer of power.

During the September 1979 Prime Ministers’ Conference, Tanzania, Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique and Angola prevailed upon British Prime Minister Mrs. Thatcher to convene a meeting of the parties to resolve the crisis amicably. Shortly afterwards Southern Rhodesia became once again a British colony and talks on a peace settlement started in the Lancaster House, London.

The historic Peace Settlement was a tribute to the genius of Lord Carrington, British Foreign Secretary and the willingness of the African leaders to avoid any further bloodshed. Elections were held in Southern Rhodesia in February 1980 when Robert Mugabe secured a majority at the polls by winning 57 out of 80 black seats. Southern Rhodesia became independent in April 1980 under the new name of Zimbabwe.

29. Vietnam:


After the World War II, France had to wage a bloody war in French Indo-China to defend her empire in that region. The Viet Minh Communists were led by Dr. Ho Chi Minh and helped by Communist China and the Soviet Union.

In spite of American help, the French position became critical in the beginning of 1954. After protracted negotiations, an agreement was arrived at the Geneva Conference and hostilities were ended. The French Colonial empire in that region was liquidated Cambodia and Laos were declared independent States. The State of Britain was divided into North Vietnam and South Vietnam and was made independent.

A Communist government was recognised in North Vietnam under Dr. Ho Chi Minh. Provision was made for the holding of elections in 1956 to decide the future of Vietnam. In spite of the Geneva Settlement of 1954, there was no peace in Vietnam. The United States did everything in her power to help South Vietnam against North Vietnam supported by Communist China and the Soviet Union.

There was a wholesale bombing of the targets in the North Vietnam but there was no end of the war. President Johnson declared on 31 March 1968 that the United States would stop air and sea attacks on North Vietnam with a view to bring peace in that region North Vietnam responded to the move of President Johnson and suggested that talks between the two countries regarding the future of Vietnam should be held in Paris.

It was in this atmosphere that talks between the two countries started in May 1968. Years passed away and nothing came out of those talks. Each side was determined to put forward its own point of view with vehemence and refused to compromise.

In spite of American participation in the war in South Vietnam, the same did not end As a matter of fact. It appeared that the forces of North Vietnam were making headway against South Vietnam m the beginning of 1972. As the United States was not prepared for such an eventuality, American bombing on North Vietnam was intensified. Not only military objectives were bombed even bridges rail-tracks, electric installations, factories, etc. were bombed and wrecked.

The American government spread mines m the harbours and rivers of North Vietnam. Efforts were made to bring about peace in the region. President Podgorny of the Soviet Union went to Hanoi to advise the government of North Vietnam to come to trans with the American government. Dr. Kissinger also visited Peking for a similar purpose. China also put pressure on North Vietnam.

The result was that in January 1973 a peace agreement was made between Hanoi and Washington. In pursuance of that agreement, fighting ended in Vietnam. The Paris Conference on Vietnam was also held. Although the war ended in Vietnam, complete peace did not come back to that area. There were many set-backs.

Consequently a new peace accord on Vietnam was signed on 13 June 1973 in Paris between the United States, North Vietnam South Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary government of South Vietnam, m spite of these accords, peace did not come to Vietnam. North Vietnam continued to make preparations for a war and was ultimately successful in conquering South Vietnam in April 1975. The American influence was liquidated from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

30. Cambodia (Khmer):


Cambodia had declared her independence in March 1945. After the collapse of Japan, the French were able to re-establish their authority in the country. A movement was started for the complete independence of the country and the same was actually achieved in July 1954 Prince Norodom Sihanouk became the head of the State.

He was a shrewd politician and he managed to keep Cambodia out of the Vietnam War. On 18 March 1970, he was deposed by the National Assembly while he was on a State visit to the Soviet Union and real power fell into the hands of Prime Minister Lon Nol backed by the United States.

The new regime of Lon Nol was anti-communist and its first task was to get rid of the communists in Cambodia, who had taken shelter in the sanctuaries. There were more than 40,000 Vietcong guerrillas in Cambodia. In spite of all the help from the United States, Lon Nol was not able to crush the Communists. A sort of civil war was continued in the country by the Khmer Rouge the communist insurrectionaries who were occupying about 30/o of the total area of Cambodia.

When Prince Norodom Sihanouk was ousted, he retired to Communist Chink. On 4 May 1970 the Royal Government of National Union of Cambodia was established in Peking and was recognised by Communist China the next day. An understanding was arrived at between Prince Sihanouk and the Khmer Rouge by which it was agreed that the real power or leadership m Cambodia would rest in the hands of the Khmer Rouge.

The civil war continued and on 17 April 1975, Cambodia surrendered to the Khmer Rouge. After a lot of hesitation, Prince Sihanouk returned to Cambodia but later on resigned as the Head of the State and a representative of the Khmer Rouge also became the Head of the State.

The world is passing through a great crisis. It is true that there is the United Nations which is surviving for peace in the world, but there are very many forces all over the world which stand m the way of the establishment of peace. The Soviet Union and Communist China are deadly enemies and there seem to be no prospects of a solution of the points of conflict between the two countries.

If Communist China insists on getting back her territories from the Soviet Union, there can be no peace between the two countries as the Soviet Union with all her strength will not surrender them. For very many years, the cold war continued between the United States and the Soviet Union and the world had no peace.

It is true that some sort of a Detente between the two countries prevails and every effort are made by the leaders of the two countries to avoid open conflicts, but it cannot be denied that tension between the two countries exists.

This is clearly proved by the attitude of the two countries on the question of Angola. Although the United States helped one of the parties contesting for power in Angola, the party backed by the Soviet Union came out successful and the United States had to eat the humble pie. Cuba sent her army. It is the horrors of a nuclear war that are putting a check on the Super Powers. It is well-understood that in the event of a war, there will be no victors. All will perish.