Askov American., 1942-12-03

by Mr.. ROoSeVelt-that the Atlantic
Charter applied, not only to the At
lantic, but to the entire world.
1t left Mr.. Roosevelt out on a limb.
He wriggled out of the corner by elab-
Grating on his earlier assurance. He
repeated that subject people should
be granted independence, but he
added that they must first go through
a period of training, fitting them for
There is one obvious weakness in
Mr.. Roosevelt's proposal. 1t does not
suggest that anyone other than the
dominant state shall determine when
a particular subject people is or is
not ready for self-government. Con-
ceivably, the ruling nation could de-
lay indefinitely the granting of indie
pendence. 1t could always assert
that the subject country was not yet
ready for self-government.
Yet, Mr.. Roosevelt could hardly
have said more than he did. He
could not have urged that disinter-
ested neutrals should have some voice
in the decision. 1t will be remem-
bered that not long since, he re-
marked that India was Britain's pri-
vate affair
1t is, perhaps, immaterial whether
Mr.. Roosevelt did or did not make
this statement. But it cannot but
lead to the admission that we. are
strangely inconsistent.
We have been posing as the cham
pions of liberty for all the earth's
oppressed peoples. We have very
definitely made their freedom our
business. Yet, as to India it is, sur
prisedly, none of our affair. We may
reasonably suppose that this is our
official attitude as to Burma, the
Malay states and other subject coun-
tries as well.
1t would seem to this writer that
if interference in the India affair is
meddling, then our whole policy is a
policy Of meddling. But if it is our
duty to work for the Liberation of
the oppressed everywhere, then our
duty to urge that India be granted
independence is clear.
1t is, of course, merely an evasion
to suggest that Britain's subject peo-
pies are happier and more secure
under Empire control than if they
were Independent. For this would
be denial of principle we our
selves have announced-that there
shall be no government except with
the consent of the governed. And,
clearly, the people of India are not
conSenting to government by Britain.
In fact, the entire Orient has shown
in rather emphatic manner it's dis
like of foreign rule. In Burma, Java,
Borneo it was the same dreary story.
The natives helped the japanese in
vaders drive out the white overlords.
One suspects that large proper
ton Of the people of India would
just as soon be dominated by the
japanese as by the British. Sooner,
perhaps. The Empires Oriental sub
jects are nearer of kin to the Japan
ese than to the British.
A growing dislike of alien rule
seems to be evident everywhere. The
Egyptians took no part in the defense
of their country when it was invaded
by Rommel. In South Africa there
was a strong faction which objected
to participation in the war The Irish
Free State has held itself aloof.
But there is another side to the
story-Britain's side.
The Empires total population is
about 500 millions. Of this, $50
millions are Orientals. Loss of its
eastern territory would leave the
Empire with population of less than
$50 millions. And of this remaining
number, a large proportion is made
up of the polyglot native population
of Africa.
Britain would be considerably out
ranked by the United States in white
population and greatly outranked by
Russia. Numerically, it would fall
from first to fifth place in the world.
The nations would take their places
in this order: China, India, Russia,
United States, Britain.
But the most serious results to
Britain would come in the loss of the
economic advantages it now enjoys.
Its control of tremendous sources of
raw materials would cease; it would
lose vast markets in which it is now
supreme.
1t might find itself among the "have
not" nations, for it is largely through |
its colonial empire that it has been
able to keep its economy in balance
Loss of their Oriental territories |
might be calamitous to the people |
If the United Kingdom.
Britain finds itself in the unhappy |
position where its idealism has come |
nto conflict with desperate economic |
necessity. We who are well fed and |
probably do not realize
now difficult it is to be idealistic on