Castrumba Follies, '61
BY DAVID REES FADERS of Mr. Peter Simple's column in j\.the Daily Telegraph are familiar with the antics of Dr. Castrumba, that portable, all- Purpose anti-colonialist. In the past, I might as well confess, it has occasionally seemed to me a little far-fetched in its genial guying of the political acrobatics of our 'uncommitted' friends. But after reading a recently published report on the 1961 Belgrade conference of the neutralist Powers issued by the Yugoslav Goverment* one must apologise to Mr. Simple for misunderstand- ing. If anything, he has been much too kind to the Castrumbas, and it even seems possible to me that Mr. Simple may be an ultra-sophisticated apologist for the Belgrade powers, part and parcel of the neutralist cause, because, compared with the attitudes of neutralist leaders reported here, Dr. Castrumba is a far-seeing statesman of dynamic idealism, deeply steeped in reality and supremely sensitive to the great issues raised by the cold war.
The keynote speech was made by the host, President Tito: 'I can state without any exag- geration that the countries represented at this conference, as well as many others which belong to no grouping, represent the great majority of world public opinion. They represent the great conscience of mankind. . .' Now this is a very large claim which one would take a little more seriously from the Marshal if he were able occasionally to take a look at the civil liberties position generally in his country, and in par- ticular the case of Mr. Djilas. Moreover, Tito went on, 'On all the most important issues we shall adopt positions which will be not only in the interest or non-aligned countries, but will be, generally speaking, in the interests of peace and of entire mankind. . . .' The claim is clear to all sceptics; you do not criticise us, you criticise three billion world inhabitants.
At least the Marshal urged an end to attacks on other countries for 'purely propaganda motives,' an admonition that seems to have fallen on many deaf ears, as the mounting torrent of hate against the West went on. Per- haps the most virulent attack—as might be expected—came from President Nkrumah, who first insisted that `by this very conference, we are constituting ourselves into a moral force, a distinct force which should be a balancing force and influence between the East and the West in the cause of peace. . . .' What is the record of the so-called civilised nations which have in- dulged in colonialism and imperialism through- out the ages?, asked Nkrumah.
RA Roman times to the present day it is a shameful record of the most brutal travesty of human decency, dignity and self-respect, a notorious record of extortion of material wealth and distortion of human welfare; a record at once foul and revolting, a decadent system. . . .
But, of Course, as he makes quite clear, Presi- dent Nkrumah means only Western imperialism in his strictures, and there is no mention or sym- pathy here for the victims of any other im- perialism itt world history, be it Asian or African, certainly riot for the many millions of human beings suffering under Communist imperialism in the present century. After this it only needed President Soekarno of Indonesia to boast about our determination to implement a new order * THE CONFERENCE OF HEADS OF STATE OR Gov- ERNMENT OF NON-ALIGNED COUNTRIES, English edition, Belgrade, 1962.
in the world' to make us realise the true and peaceful significance of dropping paratroops in Dutch New Guinea.
It can hardly come as a surprise that the references in this volume to the massive series of H-tests with which Khrushchev saluted the
opening of the conference are few and far be- tween. President Nasser was almost alone in
expressing himself `shocked.' Mr. Nehru, although at one point in his address he congratulated the conference on their `moral strength,' once again emerged as an exponent of the double standard when judging Communist actions. The Russian tests made the situation more dangerous, Nehru
said, but he prefaced this remark with the care- ful observation that 'I am not in a position, and I suppose no one else here is in a position, to know all the facts which underlie these de- cisions. . . If the Americans had begun testing, Mr. Nehru would have known all the facts; as at the time of Budapest, nothing was quite clear.
PosSibly the evasive tones of Nehru, Nkrumah and Soekarno on these .problems are well known. For the authentic super-Castrumba tone of the new moral order we must turn to other, not so well known, figures, in the galaxy of the `uncommitted.' Here is Mrs. Bandaranaike com- plaining that a settlement of the German ques- tion will not be reached 'if the Governments concerned continue to insist on legal arguments of a technical kind. . . . A discussion of legal aspects will not, in our view, contribute towards a solution.' Presumably she meant that the claims of the DDR to recognition and West Berlin are valid though illegal. Doubtless the Tamil minority in Ceylon only wishes that its legal arguments of a technical kind could be actually upheld against the central government. Here, too, is President Dorticos of the Republic of Cuba—boasting of his independent foreign policy and inveighing against the establishment of great-power military bases in other countries! Also notable among these representatives of the conscience of mankind is the delegate of that progressive society, the former Imamate of the Yemen, emphasising the grave need for `social justice' which imperialism denies to the non- aligned.
Now while all this may be good fun up to a point, the impression left by this report can hardly be anything but depressing. In the first place, throughout the speeches there is an execration of Western Europe that has to be read to be believed : our society is relentlessly presented as an imperialist one which is solely typified by Angola and Algeria. There is hardly a mention of the various Western aid pro- grammes pumped into the 'uncommitted' coun- tries, which alone prevent their economies from being even more chaotic than they actually are. While, of course, Western motives for economic aid are by no means. completely altruistic, to ignore it to this extent is to ensure a certain amount of self-deception.
Even now, when Mr. Nehru can no longer rationally delude himself as to Chinese motives, it is at least as important to him to proclaim that he can obtain MiGs from the USSR as to acknowledge Western aid, so that he can still speak, at least, of a non-alignment that has in fact become quite meaningless. And, indeed, this policy of neutralist self-deception is about as dangerous for the West as it is for these potential victims of Communist aggression and subversion themselves. If democracy breaks down in the 'uncommitted' countries, so much the worse for all of us; yet if government by consent collapses in India, it will be as much the fault of doctrinaire neutralism as of Chinese aggression. Lastly, there is one important group which is hardly ever mentioned in the delibera- tions of the successive neutralist conferences: the people of the countries represented, the vic- tims of the great illusion which diverts energies and resources away from constructive reforms and economic progress to chauvinistic and anti- Western self-assertion. The governments of the `uncommitted' are independent; their peoples are destined to still break stone.
Previous page
