It is difficult to get a clear picture of what is happening on India's
northern frontier ard what has set into motion the renewed outbreak of fighting,
The bellicose utterances of Nehru and other Indian leaders combined with a denial
by the Chinese that they have crossed the McMahon line (vhich they don't reco;nise
anyway), the fact that what is at stake is merely thousands of square miles of
barren waste-land, the growing inlfuence which the Chinese scem to have in Nepal,
all indicate that we mst probe beneath the surface what is causing this conflict.
The lest time this conflict came to the fore (November /December 1959) Nehru was
obliged to withdraw crack Gurkha units from the fighting because the latter had
become disaffected, largely because of the influence of the land reform in Tibet.
The best reports of this appeared in the Daily Jixpress, early December, which had
a reporter on the spot. India's difficult economic position and especially her
severe balance of payments crisis which is largely being amelorated by U.S. assistance
suggest that the whole affair is, from Nehru's point of view, a good opportunity
to divert the dissatisfaction of the Indian people. From a revolutionary point
of view there are many important side-issues, it is very likely that the dispute
will intensify the JSino/Russian schism. Unless the Khrushchovites are willing to
make a stand against Nehru it seems quite possible that there may be an open break
between Moscow and Peking, which would have profound political consequences. There
is no sign of them doing so, information to hand suggests that the international
stalinist movement is in a dilemma on this issue - the Daily Worker has reported
the statements of both sides without comment, Winter will soon be on tho Himalayas
and the problem may be postponed, but between the leaders of the Chinese workers
state (no matter what their faults) and the Congress regime which has been the main
blod to the development of revolution in the worlds second largest state our choice
is clear. Vhose side will the Khushchovites take?
JSIDS THE COMMON MARKET -
In this issue of the Bulletin we give two extracts from the European Community Butletin which show the mainer in which agencies of the European Esonomic Communi ty ‘interfere! in the internsl affairs of member countries. Of course we bring tuis forward not because of our fear of 'for>zigners', but because in class torms th«se things represent the ganging up of various capitalist classes to put the burden of rationelisation onto the workers of one country. The case of the Belgian miners is well-known; aithough the contendents appear to be the 4.C.5.C. ond the Belgian Government, in rcality, the wrangling boils down to an argument about the best way to sack thousands of the Belgian miners. (The same issue of the journal reports plans to 'ressapt! the jobs of 4,300 German miners, 2,200 Franch and 700 Belgians). The Dutch transport case is not so direct. However, it shows the power exercised by the High Authority to insist on the publication of Transpert rates in the ‘interests of free competition.' As we know, under modern ccnditions this means in the interests of big ronpolies and this, in the last anal; sis, means in the interests of the most ¢fficient exploitation of the working class. The only answer to the ganging up of the monopolies is the ganging up of the workers across State boundaries and is hoped that readers of the Bulletin will use this information to proselytise the idea of a workers united front ‘in face of a united front of monopolists. Belgian coal from the Bulletin of Buropean Community
a (September 1962 issue)
The High Authority of the Juropean Coal and Steel Community has made the first moves to end the isolation of the Belgian coal industry. The High Authority considers that the continued isolation of the inausvry could now hirder the rodevelopment plans made necessary by the uncompetitive condition of some Belgian mines. The isolation of the Belgian coal industry, by means of quotas on iimorts of coal into Belgium from Community as well as non-Community countries, was “ntroduced as a special measure in 1958 to protect the industry fron the coal crisis which started that year. Since then the High Authority and the Belgian Government have cooperated in closing down uneconomic pits. Continued protection has substantially reduced pit-head stocks, tut it is also providing what the High Authority considers may be encouragement to keen uneconomic mines in operation.
For this reason the High Authority has decided that from Aneust lst. imperts into Belgium from Community countries of anthracite, low-volatile coals, and enthracite and similar briquettes should be completely freed. Quotas for imp— orts of other types of coal, and export quotas for Belgian coal to Community countries, were increased by 10 per cent. At the same time the High Authority asked the Belgian Government to prepare further proposals for the rationalisation of the Belgian coal in‘ustry to be considered by the 1.C.8.C. Council of Ministers early next year. Lergium will close down 500,000 tons of capacity between July and December of this year. The High Authority has already provided readantion funds for the miners invelved. Dutch transport case from tue Bulietin of suroepan Community
(October, 1962, issue)
The Court of Justice of the Guropean Comminity on GL 12 rejected the Dutch Government's contention. that the Eigh Authority's »ecommendation on the publicity of transport rates in the Coal and Steel Community was illegal. The Dutch Governmont cl..ned that the High Authority has overstepped its powers in making the recommenuation. Ths court's decision, which upheld the High Authority's view that the principle of the publication of transport rates was iaid down in the Paris Treaty has put an end to the uncertainty which has surrounded the issue for several years. The Mitch Government rade its first appeal against the High Authority on this issue three years ago. In its judgement, the court stated thet price publicity was essentiel if transport f‘ms were to be able to compete freely. According to the Court the Trea of Paris coes not limit itself to forbidding discrimination but stipulates | adequate publicity of all forms of transport rates for coal and steel thoughout i «ees Community. Pa eae ih
The court stated that the High Autho membsar states! execution of their oblige recommendation, although it has no po in the Treaty. In this case % tly, according to the Court,
did not exceed the High
the High huthority's x
controls....to censure +