Labour Monthly, April 1942
Source: Labour Monthly, April 1942, p.113-116, signed by I. Rennap;
Transcribed: by Ted Crawford.
“If we were to stop sending munitions to the British and the Russians in the Mediterranean and the Gulf we would help the Nazis to overrun Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Persia, Egypt, the Suez Canal and the whole coast of North Africa and West Africa.”
This significant passage from Mr. Roosevelt’s speech Made last February reveals how important the Middle East is becoming as a supply base to the U.S.S.R., as well as to the British forces in that area.
For some time past an American Mission under General Wheeler has been working in Iraq and Iran to “speed up the supply of war weapons to the Soviet and British Forces in the regions north and west of the Persian Gulf,” for which purpose “an organisation involving four American contractors, several million dollars’ worth of equipment and over 5,000 technicians has been established” (Times, February 19).
Roads and railways are being constructed; buildings have been erected in which plants have been installed to assemble (for the Soviet Union and the Middle East Allied Armies) aircraft, motor vehicles and barges. New docks and pipelines are being constructed, while existing harbours in the Persian Gulf are being enlarged.
The Americans are working closely with similar Soviet and British Missions. Soviet engineers and technicians are working on an important section of the railway line which stretches from Teheran northwards to Banda Shah on the Caspian Sea, as well as developing the ports on the Caspian. The British Mission has set up a Transportation Directorate in Teheran to develop existing roads and communications to link the Iranian with the Russian railway system. This is absorbing a great deal of local labour. On the Zahedan Meshed road alone “10,000 labourers are now engaged under the direction of Teheran contractors” (Times, February 20). Where goods cannot be transported by rail, road transport is being organised by the United Kingdom Commercial Corporation, which has chartered a fleet of nearly 1,000 lorries. The closest co-operation exists between the British and Soviet staffs.
Supplies of jute, rubber, tin and shellac, as well as manufactured goods, are also being sent through this route to the Soviet Union. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the organisation .... both for the shipping and for the handling of war supplies for Russia is steadily growing” (March 3).
The Middle East’s growing importance as a supply base is clear. With the Nazis massing troops and material in North Africa and along the Eastern Mediterranean, and the Japanese now threatening from the Pacific the entrance to the Indian Ocean, the Middle East may well come within the orbit of Hitler’s long heralded spring offensive. Hence the importance of one of the lessons of Malaya, Singapore, and now Java, with its vast population of 40 millions, namely, that if this important supply base is to be effectively defended against Axis aggression, then its peoples must be won over wholeheartedly for the anti-Fascist cause.
Singapore (and Malaya), according to The Times correspondent, fell quickly because, among other reasons, its government had no roots among the people.
The bulk of the population were apathetic spectators of a conflict which they felt did not concern them (February 18).
And of Java The Times correspondent said:-
The tragedy of Java is simply a continuation of the tragedy of Malaya The same factors were operative in Java that had been operative in Malaya.... In both the people of the country where the war was being fought did not regard the conflict as being personally their own (March 10).
Hence the recent political developments in the Middle East and their effects on its peoples have an important bearing on the need for strengthening this Allied base.
The recent Anglo-Soviet-Iranian Treaty, guaranteeing Iran’s territorial integrity and independence in the spirit of the Atlantic Charter, was a blow at the aims of Nazi Imperialism in the Middle East. By protecting Iran against Axis aggression, and by expanding its industry and trade, thereby strengthening the country’s economy, this Treaty has brought the Iranian people into the anti-Fascist alliance, despite the activity of Axis agents and a small native pro-Fascist minority. The large vote this Treaty received in the Majless (National Assembly) reflects its popular support among the people.
Furthermore, the coming to power in Egypt of the Wafdist (Nationalist) Government with British support reflects Britain’s necessity, in view of the Axis menace, to seek co-operation with the progressive anti-Fascist forces in Egypt. This is a big blow at Axis activity in one of the most strategic parts of the Middle East. Here Axis propaganda had attempted to exploit Egypt’s economic difficulties to work up feeling against Britain and her allies. The inability of the late Hussein Sirry Government to handle in a positive fashion Egypt’s internal problems gave the pro-Fascist elements within the Palace clique around King Farouk their opportunity. Egypt was still saddled with a substantial portion of her 1940-41 cotton crop, whilst no real efforts were made by the Government last year to restrict the cotton acreage and increase the area sown for wheat production. Thus the country this season was faced yet again with a large cotton crop, the bulk of which has yet to be exported, and a considerable shortage of wheat and maize and other essential foodstuffs, such as sugar and meat (Times, November 7). The cost of living rose “more than 60 per cent. above the pre-war level” (Manchester Guardian, January 7). Although having no sound economic policy, this Government had, nevertheless, taken a number of anti-Axis measures. It had broken off relations with Italy, Hungary, Rumania and Japan, although it had not declared war on these countries. Furthermore, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Chamber had recommended the establishment of diplomatic relations with the U.S.S.R.
Hussein Sirry’s break with Vichy was seized by Farouk as a pretext to oust the Government (which represented the Egyptian upper classes and had no real popular support) and to attempt to replace it with “men more amenable to direct interference from the throne and .... more open to the influence of those powers whose hand can already be traced in his (Farouk’s) own policy” (Manchester Guardian, February 5).
In this he failed. Unable to form another coalition Government Farouk had no option but to ask the Wafdist leader, Nahas Pasha, to form a Government. Nahas, however, categorically refused to form a coalition Government because this, he declared:-
would have given a quite disproportionate representation to elements which in fact represented an inconsiderable fraction of public opinion and would, therefore, not have been a true reflection of the will of the country (Daily Telegraph, February 17).
Thus Farouk was compelled to allow Nahas to form a wholly Wafdist Government which has the backing of the overwhelming majority of the Egyptian people. The new Premier has affirmed his loyalty to the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 which recognises Egypt’s independence and territorial integrity, but declared also that he would tolerate no interference in Egypt’s internal affairs. The British Government has been compelled to accept this and also give the warmest support to the Wafdist Government. World events have made Whitehall recognise that the best defence of Egypt and Suez, the gateway to the Middle East and India, means co-operation with a Government that has wide popular support and, as Nahas affirmed, is “definitely ranged in the democratic camp and under no circumstances could align herself with the Totalitarian States.”
As the Times remarked in an editorial:-
The return of Nahas Pasha to power on a wave of popular support guarantees the better defence of Egypt (March 4).
The new Egyptian Premier has already begun to tackle some of Egypt’s internal problems. Within three weeks of assuming office he “promised the Provincial governors support in suppressing agitators against Britain” and has “decreed that workers for the Government should have their wages increased – in most cases by 100 per cent.” (News Chronicle, February 26); whilst a minimum wage for agricultural and casual labour has also been fixed (Times, March 4). The close co-operation between the British and Egyptian Governments as full allies has borne its first fruits. Large quantities of British wheat have been sent to Egypt to relieve the acute shortage. This is of the utmost importance, for Nahas Pasha declared that in Egypt “the wheat problem was more important than any of the political issues facing the country” (Daily Telegraph, March 3). Not only is this a blow at the Axis agents who would certainly have exploited this acute issue to undermine support for the Government; it is also a blow at those elements within Egypt’s upper classes who, mainly because of the Wafd’s economic policy, refuse to co-operate and are already attempting to embarrass the Government by boycotting the General Elections which are to be held on March 24.
Thus the victory of Egypt’s progressive forces has made an enormous contribution towards strengthening the Middle East as a bastion against Fascist aggression. It has already had favourable repercussions. In Iran the Government was sharply criticised in the Majless for “slowness in introducing the reforms when the regime was changed,” as well as for its “economic policy” and for the “maintenance (in the Government: I.R.) of men closely identified with the old regime” (Daily Telegraph, February 26). The dismissal of a number of ministers would not satisfy the Deputies, and the Government was forced to resign. Clearly the entry of Soviet and British troops into Iran, as well as the economic development that has gone on since then, has not only removed a danger to the Allies and opened up a supply route to the Soviet Union; it has also begun a new awakening of the people which expressed itself in the overthrow of the pro-Fascist Shah, Rezah Pahlevi; whilst the recent Government resignation indicates that Iran’s upper classes, under the impact of world events, are realising that to-day the Majless is no longer the old impotent “Reichstag” of Shah Rezah’s day.
The declaration some months ago by Britain and the Free French of the independent Syrian and Lebanon Republics are also important steps towards winning the Middle East peoples for Hitler’s defeat.
Clearly, the recent political developments in the Middle East have contributed enormously towards strengthening the progressive peoples’ movements and bringing them into the anti-Fascist struggle. But there are still formidable obstacles. Pro-Fascist influence is still strong in the Arab world. The Fascists are tireless in their propaganda, using such Arab quislings as the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem and Rashid Ali to arouse opposition against the Allies. Moreover, there still exists an element which, although anti-Axis, is still definitely anti-British and anti-French. The Times Middle East correspondent reports:-
The fact must be faced that .... in all the Eastern Arab countries recognition of the disastrous consequences which would follow a British defeat is clouded by an emotional resentment against Britain and still more against France, little distinction being drawn for this purpose between Vichy and the Free French (February 4).
Here, among these elements, lies the danger of finding, in the event of Fascist aggression, many “apathetic spectators of a conflict which .... did not concern them,” who, with the pro-Fascist Arabs, would be a menace to the Allies. Hence, alongside the political measures already indicated, the national Governments in the Middle East need immediately to embark upon social reforms to raise the economic level of their peoples. This has already begun (the distribution of land to the peasantry in Iran; the wage increases in Egypt); but it must be accelerated. In this our Government must give them every assistance. To the extent that these Middle East Governments arc assisted by us to solve their economic problems (particularly the food problem which has been so acute in Egypt, Syria and the other Arab countries, due to a very bad harvest and war conditions) and to develop their industries and trade – to that extent the ground is strengthened for the Middle East peoples to be won as firm and active adherents to the anti-Fascist cause. It would undermine Fascist infiltration; it would help to eliminate prospective “apathetic spectators,” thus helping to make the Middle East a real bastion against Fascist penetration.
The Emir Abdullah of Transjordan has summarised this point very clearly. He said:-
If the Arabs in Irak and Syria were more satisfied they would be less willing to listen to Nazi propaganda, and Allied prestige would be strengthened (Evening Standard, March 12).
This is the great lesson which Java, Malaya and the once “impregnable” Far East bastion, Singapore, has for the Middle East. This lesson applies even more so to India, where the decisive significance of national freedom for the fight against Fascism is most sharply demonstrated. By the spring these vast territories with their hundreds of millions of peoples may be threatened by a gigantic German-Japanese pincer drive from both ends of the Asiatic continent. The progressive forces in this country must see that our Government learns this lesson quickly because time is short. Once learned and applied, it would transform the whole situation in the East.