Editorial. ..

Wternational Fumbling, Re-Stalinization,

Present A Sorry Picture

E state of international affairs 5 so extraordinary, and the fate f the South Pacific countries closely bound up with what ens as between East and West in other words, between ;alism and Communism, or be i Individualism and Red Total kiism) that this PIM review it necessary to report develop s from month to month, ring suffered under ten years nerican anti-colonial dictation »rld affairs, Britain and France y revolted against the trend 1 United States had permitted e Middle East, and militarily ted the Nasser-led Arab States, trouble was focussed on the

fcanal.

[ted States panicked, and in t on Britain and France going reverse. In an attempt to save westerners’ face, the Americans ht their ridiculous straw-man ion (UNO) into action. Britain France withdrew on condition i United Nations force assumed land of Suez and the Middle situation. it move deceived no one—and |nly not the anti-British Arab Mian States. be then, Nasser has been strut fccross the stage like a victor, [at by United States while he d demands and insults at in and France, and while his ttiing Wogs destroyed the De ps statue and the Anzac )rial. India’s Nehru could not al his delight. tain and France have been y humiliated in the eyes of the E but the immediate threat of has been averted, and the Western trading corporations cially those centred in North lea) go on to bigger and better ;s. There, we have right before I illustration of the very ugly )f Western Capitalism, the de tion of which is ostensibly the [purpose of Muscovite Com sm. [ANWHILE, there have been breath-taking changes in the structure and apparent purpose orld Communism, as directed presented by Moscow, til about July, Moscow was lincing Stalin and wooing the [ with honeyed words to the t that East and West could [together in amity, each adher- D its own politico-social system, en came revolts in practically

every one of the “satellite” countries —that is, the formerly independent nations which were overrun by Russians during World War 11, and which have been held for ten years in a condition of Communist slavery. Even as we watched, Russia’s international attitude changed from back-slapping good fellowship to c 1 a s s-c onsc i o u s savagery.

While Nasser, under Russian in spiration and control, was directing the Arab States’ campaign against Britain (thus precipitating the Suez crisis), Russia was pouring troops into the satellite countries, and massacring the Hungarians in a way that disclosed to the whole world the true character of the Moscow gang that calls itself the

Ussr.

The international situation which boiled up in November-December — Britain and France discredited and humiliated; United States trying frantically to make UNO work, but failing dismally; the Suez Canal blocked and the Middle East oil installations partially wrecked; the pro-Nasser Arab States on the point of going to war against Britain, but being restrained by Iraq, Turkey and Persia; Washington trying to prop up the Western alliance, now likely to collapse because of Wash ington’s desertion of Britain and France in the Suez crisis; Russia,

her teeth bared savagely, openly returning from de-Stalinization to re-Stalinization—w as a situation that clearly confused and scared even the world’s experts in inter national affairs.

ANEW danger to the world now become apparent, and real, and terrifying.

The events in the Middle East and in the satellite countries, ex posing and defeating the Cold War plans of Russia, suggest that Russian influence is waning. In the opinion of the most sober observers, there now is a grave possibility that the Moscow Gang, recognising and facing this threat to the Red Empire they have built so painfully, will decide to put all to the hazard, and launch a nuclear wa.r This risk has suddenly become widely recog nised.

In no other way can anyone ex plain the astonishing gyrations and contortions of United States diplomacy.

Washington, influenced since 1945 by rabid anti-colonialists, drove Britain and France out of Asia and the Dutch out of Indonesia (and, incidentally, let loose on the inter national scene a host of yapping little “nations” which, because of their UNO status, are an increas in g embarrassment). American diplomacy —or lack of it —created the Middle East situation which, in turn, drove the Anglo-French to action in Suez. American diplomacy then compelled the Anglo-French to leave Suez; kowtowed to Mr.

Nasser; and insisted that the whole Suez-Middle East situation be handed over for control to a puny, piebald force from UNO.

And then, literally overnight,

Washington decided that the Middle East—because of Communist pene tration —is a danger to world peace; and now plans to take all measures necessary whereby United States (not United Nations) forces may go in and police the whole area. The reasons given by Eisenhower are: (1) Russia plans to get control there and thus menace Africa; (2) more than half of the West’s oil supply comes from the Middle East; (3) the holy places of three great religions are in the Middle East, and must always be freely accessible.

THE hypocrisy of it! These are the things that British writers have been pointing out with in creasing urgency for several years.

It was the failure of United States (and its useless creation, UNO) to take any action at all in relation to Moscow’s Middle East plan (then being rapidly developed through Nasser and his Arab States) which forced that unhappy action upon Britain and France.

According to the record, USA forced Britain and France out of Suez because Russia threatened, if they did not go, Russia would enter a shooting war on the side of Egypt and Syria, so as to prevent Anglo- French control of the Middle East.

Now America herself moves in to keep Russia out of the Middle East.

Russia’s reaction—announced as this is written —is ugly and violent.

Washington could have achieved exactly the same thing—probably at less risk of nuclear war—by sup porting the Anglo-French policy and action in Octobsr-November.

WASHINGTON’S bumble-footed

diplomacy has partially wrecked the Western Alliance, caused

enormous economic dislocation and loss in Western Europe, left Mr.

Nasser (crowing loudly) in charge of the vital Suez Canal, and in furiated Mr. Kruschev to the point where that irresponsible dipsomaniac may at any moment “start some thing” with nuclear weapons.

About the only good thing that the blundering of the Eisenhower - Dulles combination has achieved is the exposure of the uselessness of the United Nations Organisation. Surely it is time that that prematurely born concept of our tame idealists was folded up and put away in mothballs, to await the time when the human race is sufficiently far advanced to outlaw armaments and war. In about two hundred years!

Meanwhile, we of the South Pacific, directly menaced by one thousand million growingly-arrog ant Asians, can only look on help lessly while our defences —and our future—are directed and shaped by the fumbling hands of the now confused and bemused West.