Glimpses of World History

by Jawaharlal Nehru

  Although there is a melting of races, the governing classes belong to the white ruling aristocracy. The clique or group that controls the army and police usually governs, and, as I have told you, there have been frequent revolutions at the top. All the South American countries have abundant mineral resources, and are thus potentially very rich. But meanwhile they are sunk in debt, and as soon as the United States stopped lending money to them four years ago, they got into a hopeless muddle, and there were revolutions all over the place. The three chief countries, the ABC countries as they are called, Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, also succumbed to revolutions, owing to financial difficulties.

  Since the summer of 1932 South America has had two little wars of its own, but, like the Japanese war in Manchuria, they are not officially called wars. Ever since the League of Nations covenant and the Kellogg Peace Pact and other pacts, wars hardly occur. When one nation invades another and kills its citizens, this is called a “conflict”, and as a conflict is not prohibited by the pacts, everybody is happy! These little wars have no world importance, such as the Manchurian one had, but they serve to prove how weak and futile the whole much-vaunted peace machinery of the world is, from the League of Nations to the numerous pacts and agreements. One member of the League invades another member, and the League sits helplessly by, or makes feeble and utterly useless efforts to settle the quarrel.

  One of these wars or “conflicts” in South America is between Bolivia and Paraguay over a piece of jungle territory called the Chaco. A witty Frenchman has said: “The struggle between Bolivia and Paraguay over the Chaco jungle reminds me of two bald-headed men fighting for a comb.” The struggle is foolish, but it is not quite so silly as this. There are oil interests involved in this vast jungle territory, and the river Paraguay, which runs through it, connects Bolivia with the Atlantic Ocean. The two countries have refused to compromise, and have sacrificed thousands of lives already.

  The other conflict is between Colombia and Peru over a little village named Laticia, which Peru seized very improperly. I think that Peru was strongly criticized by the League of Nations.

  Latin America (and this includes Mexico) is Catholic in religion. In Mexico violent conflicts have taken place between the State and the Catholic priests. As in Spain, the Mexican Government wanted to curb the great power of the Roman Church in education and in almost everything.

  The language of South America is Spanish, except in Brazil, where Portuguese is the official language. Because of this enormous area where it flourishes, Spanish is today one of the greatest of world languages. It is a beautiful and sonorous language, with a fine modern literature, and now, because of South America, it is a commercial language of great importance.

  195

  The Shadow of War

  August 8, 1933

  In our last letter we surveyed rapidly the continents of Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Europe remains, troublesome and quarrelsome Europe, and yet possessing many virtues.

  England, so long the leading world Power, has lost her old supremacy and is trying hard to hold on to what remains. Her sea-power, which gave her security and dominance over others and enabled her to build up her empire, is no longer what it was. There was a time, not so long ago, when her navy was bigger and more powerful than that of any other two great Powers. Today it claims equality only with that of the United States and, in case of need, the United States have the resources to outbuild England rapidly. Even more important than sea-power is air-power today, and in this respect England is weaker still; there are several Powers which have more fighting aeroplanes than she has. Her trade supremacy is also gone without hope of recovery, and her great export trade progressively declines. By means of high tariffs and preferences she is trying to preserve the Empire market for her goods. This in itself means a giving up of ambitious ideas of world trade outside the Empire. Even if success comes to her in this more limited sphere, it does not bring back to her the old supremacy. That is gone for ever. Even the limited success within the Empire is of doubtful extent and duration.

  England is still, after her fierce duel with America, the financial centre of world trade, and the City of London is the central exchange for it. But this prize is losing all its lustre and value as world trade shrinks and disappears. England and other countries, by their policies of economic nationalism, tariffs, etc., are themselves helping in this shrinkage of world trade. Even if a large measure of world trade continues and the present capitalist system endures, there can be no doubt that the financial leadership of it will eventually shift to New York from London. But very probably before that happens vast changes will have taken place in the capitalist system.

  England has a reputation of adapting herself to changing circumstances. The reputation is justified so long as her social basis receives no shock and her possessing classes retain their privileged position. Whether this capacity for adaptation will carry her through fundamental social changes has still to be seen. It is highly unlikely that such a change will be quietly and peacefully effected. Those who have power and privilege do not give them up willingly.

  Meanwhile England is shrinking from the bigger world to her Empire, and to preserve this Empire she has agreed to great changes in its structure. The Dominions have a measure of independence, though they are tied in many ways to the British financial system. England has sacrificed much to please her growing Dominions, and yet conflicts arise between them. Australia is bound hand and foot to the Bank of England, and fear of Japanese invasion keeps her closely tied to England; Canada’s growing industries compete with some of England’s and refuse to give in to them, and Canada has also numerous associations with her great neighbour, the United States; in South Africa there is no great sentiment in favour of the Empire, though the old bitterness has now gone. Ireland stands by herself, and the Anglo-Irish trade war is still going on. The English duties on Irish goods, which were meant to frighten and coerce Ireland into submission, have had a contrary effect. They have given a tremendous push to Irish industries and agriculture, and Ireland is succeeding in becoming to a large extent a self-reliant and self-sufficient nation. Fresh factories have sprung up and grass-land is again becoming corn-land. The food that used to be exported to England is now consumed by the people, and their standards are rising. De Valera has thus triumphantly vindicated his policy, and Ireland today is a thorn in British Imperial policy, aggressive, defiant, and not fitting in at all with the Ottawa deals. England thus does not stand to gain much by her trade associations with her Dominions. She could gain much from India, for India still offers a vast market. But political conditions in India, as well as economic distress, are not favourable to British trade. By sending people to gaol one cannot force them to buy British goods. Mr Stanley Baldwin said recently in Manchester: “The day when we could dictate to India and tell her when and where to buy her goods was gone. The safeguard for trade was goodwill. We should never sell goods to India by cotton streamers on the end of a bayonet.”

  Apart from internal conditions in India, England has to face fierce Japanese competition here and elsewhere in the East and in some of the Dominions.

  So England is trying hard to hold on to what she has got by making of her Empire an economic unit, and adding to this such other small countries as come to terms with her, such as Denmark or the Scandinavian countries. This policy is being forced on her by the very logic of events; there is no other way. Even to protect herself in times of war she must be more self-contained. She is therefore developing her agriculture now also. How far this imperial policy of economic nationalism will succeed no one can say now. I have suggested many difficulties which will come in the way of success. If failure comes, then the whole structure of Empire must collapse, and the English people will have to face a much lower standard of living, unless they change over to a socialist economy. But even the success of the policy is full of dangers, for it may result in the ruin of many European countries, whose trade will thus not have a sufficient outlet,
and the bankruptcy of England’s debtors will in its turn do harm to England’s position.

  Economic conflicts are also bound to arise against Japan and America. With the United States there is rivalry in many fields, and, as the world stands today, the United States, with her vast resources, must go ahead while England declines. This process can only lead to a quiet acceptance of defeat in the struggle by England, or to the risk of war to make a final effort to save what she has before that too goes and she is too weak to challenge her rivals.

  Yet another great rival of England is the Soviet Union. They stand for diametrically opposite policies, and they glare at each other and intrigue against each other all over Europe and Asia. The two Powers may live at peace with each other for a while, but it is quite impossible to reconcile the two, for they stand for wholly different ideals.

  England is a satisfied Power today because she has got all she wants. Her fear is that she will lose this, and the fear is justified. She tries hard to maintain the status quo, and thereby her present position, by using the League of Nations for this purpose. But events are too strong for her or for any Power. Undoubtedly she is strong today but equally undoubtedly she weakens and declines as an imperialist Power, and we are witnessing the evening of her great Empire.

  Crossing over to the continent of Europe, there is France, also an imperialist Power with a great empire in Africa and Asia. In a military sense she is the most powerful nation in Europe.1 She has a mighty army, and she is the leader of a group of other nations: Poland, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Rumania, Yugoslavia. And yet she fears the militant spirit of Germany, especially since the Hitler regime. Hitler has indeed succeeded in bringing about a remarkable change of feelings between capitalist France and Soviet Russia. A common enemy has made them quite friendly to each other.

  In Germany the Nazi Terror still continues, and reports of new cruelties and atrocities come daily. How long this brutality will continue it is impossible to say; it has already lasted many months, and there is no abatement of it. Such repression can never be the sign of a stable government. Probably if Germany had been strong enough in a military sense there would have been a war already in Europe. This war may yet come. Hitler is fond of saying that he is the last refuge from communism, and this may be true, for the only alternative to Hitlerism in Germany now is communism.

  Italy, under Mussolini, takes a very cold, matter-of-fact, and selfish view of international politics, and does not indulge in pious phrases about peace and goodwill, as other nations do. She prepares for war strenuously, for she is convinced that war is bound to come before long, and meanwhile she manoeuvres for position. Being fascist, she welcomes fascism in Germany, and keeps on friendly terms with the Hitlerites; and yet she opposes the great aim of German policy—the union with Austria. Such a union would bring the German frontier right up to the Italian, and Mussolini does not fancy this nearness of his brother fascist of Germany.2

  Central Europe is a heaving mass of petty nations suffering in the grip of the slump and from the after-effects of the World War, and now thoroughly upset and frightened by Hitler and his Nazis. In all these Central European countries, and especially where there are Germans, as in Austria, Nazi parties are growing. But anti-Nazi feeling is also growing, and the result is conflict. Austria is at present the chief field for this conflict.

  Some time back, in 1932, I think, the three pro-French States of Central Europe and the Danube area—Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia—formed a union or alliance. All these three States had profited by the World War settlement, and they wanted to keep what they had got. For this purpose they joined together and formed what was in reality an alliance for war. This is called the “Little Entente”. This Little Entente comprising the three States practically forms a new Power in Europe, which is pro-French and anti-German and opposed to Italian policy also.

  The triumph of the Nazis in Germany was a danger signal to the Little Entente as well as to Poland, for the Nazis not only wanted a revision of the Versailles Peace Treaty (all Germans wanted this), but talked in terms which seemed to bring war near. So aggressive and violent were the Nazi language and other tactics that even such States as wanted a treaty revision, like Austria and Hungary, got frightened. As a result of Hitlerism and in fear of it, all the States of Central Europe and the East which had so far bitterly hated each other drew nearer to one another—the Little Entente, Poland, Austria, Hungary, and the Balkan States. There has even been talk of an economic union between them. These countries, and notably Poland and Czechoslovakia, have also become more friendly towards Soviet Russia since the Nazi eruption in Germany. A consequence of this was the general non-aggression pact signed between them and Russia some weeks ago.

  Spain, as I have told you, has recently had a revolution. It cannot settle down, and seems to hover on the brink of another change.

  So you see what a curious chequerboard Europe is at present, with its conflicts and hatreds, and rival groups of nations glaring at each other. There is interminable talk of disarmament, and yet everywhere there is arming going on and new and terrible weapons of war and destruction are being invented. There is also plenty of talk of international cooperation, and conferences without number have been held. All to little purpose. The League of Nations itself is a pitiful failure, and the last effort to pull together at the World Economic Conference has also come and gone with no success. There is a proposal that the various countries of Europe, or rather Europe without Russia, should join together to form a kind of United States of Europe. The “Pan-Europe” movement this is called, and it is really an effort to form an anti-Soviet bloc, as well as to get over the innumerable difficulties and tangles due to there being such a large number of little nations. But national hatreds are far too powerful for any one to pay attention to such a proposal. In reality each country is drifting farther apart from the others. The slump and world crisis have quickened this process by pushing all countries along the lines of economic nationalism. Each sits behind high tariff barriers and tries to keep out as far as possible foreign goods. It cannot, of course, keep out all foreign goods, because no country is self-sufficient—that is, capable of producing everything it requires. But the tendency is for it to grow or manufacture everything it needs. Some essential articles it may not be able to grow because of its climate. For instance, England cannot grow cotton or jute or tea or coffee and many other articles which require a warmer climate. This means that in future trade will be largely confined between countries having different climates, and therefore growing and making different articles. Countries manufacturing the same type of articles will have little use for each other’s goods. Thus trade will go north and south, and not east and west, for climates vary north and south. A tropical country may deal with a temperate or cold country, but not two tropical countries with each other, or two temperate countries. Of course there may be other considerations also, such as the mineral resources of a country. But in the main the north and south considerations will apply to international trade. All other trade will be stopped by tariff barriers.

  This seems to be an inevitable tendency today. It is called the final phase in the industrial revolution when each country is sufficiently industrialized. It is true that Asia and Africa are far from industrialized yet. Africa is too backward and too poor to absorb manufactured goods in any quantity. The three large areas which might continue to absorb such foreign goods are India, China, and Siberia. Foreign industrial countries are looking eagerly towards these three huge potential markets. Having been cut off from many of their usual markets, they are thinking of this “push towards Asia” in order to dispose of their surplus goods, and thus prop up their tottering capitalism. But it is not so easy to exploit Asia now, partly because of the development of Asiatic industries, and partly because of international rivalry. England wants to keep India as a market for her own goods, but Japan and the United States and Germany want a look in also. So also in China; and to add to this is her present dis
turbed state and want of proper communications, which make trade difficult. Soviet Russia is prepared to take quite a lot of manufactured goods from abroad if she is given credit and not asked to pay for them immediately. But very soon the Soviet Union will make almost everything it requires.

  The whole past tendency has been towards greater interdependence between nations, a greater internationalism. Even though separate independent national States remained, an enormous and intricate structure of international relations and trade grew up. This process went so far as to conflict with the national States and with nationalism itself. The next natural step was a socialized international structure. Capitalism, having had its day, had reached the stage when it was time for it to retire in favour of socialism. But unhappily such a voluntary retirement never takes place. Because crisis and collapse threatened it, it has withdrawn into its shell and tried to reverse the past tendency towards interdependence. Hence economic nationalism. The question is if this can succeed, and even if it does so, for how long?

  The whole world is a strange mix-up, a terrible tangle of conflicts and jealousies, and the new tendencies but increase the field of these conflicts. In every continent, in every country, the weak and the oppressed want to share in the good things of life which they themselves help to produce. They claim payment of their debt, long overdue to them. In some places they are doing so loudly and harshly and aggressively; in other places more quietly. Can we blame them if, angry and bitter at the treatment and exploitation they have been subjected to for so long, they act in a manner we do not like? They were ignored and looked down upon; no one took the trouble to teach them drawing-room manners.