WE ARE AT WAR, MAKE NO MISTAKE!

FACING REALITIES

Mr. Calwell again demonstrates his hypocrisy when he taunts the government with its policy of trading with Red China. If his question "Are we at war with China? If so why are we selling hundreds of millions of pounds of strategic materials to China each year, and all the time trying to promote more trade," was a genuine criticism we would be the first to applaud him. But recently on being challenged by Mr. McEwen to clarify the position of the Labour Party, Mr. Calwell said they agreed with the Australian policy of trade with Communist countries as it was inducive to peaceful relationships. Therefore in this regard he is just as unrealistic as the government and should honestly say so.

The sooner the full force and facts of the Prime Minister's statement are faced the better for Australia and the rest of the Western world. If as Mr. Calwell said it was, the Prime Ministers statement was "merely indulging in an oratorical flourish, suitable for a banquet hall full of wealthy and elderly men," then we are the losers. Sir Robert's statement could well mean a hardening of policy by the government on the trade question. If enough Australians confront him with the realities of his own statement there will be some hope of it not remaining an "oratorical flourish".

THE DUKE and SOUTHERN RHODESIA

The commentators are interpreting the Duke of Edinburgh's recent statement calling for patience in Southern Rhodesia as being pro the Smith Government. However it is pertinent to note that the Duke also said
"I think everybody recognises that the ultimate result is inevitable..." meaning that the British Government policy of African majority rule is inevitable. If this is so it is apparent that the Duke does not recognise the reality or justice of Mr. Ian Smith's position.

In addition to contending for a ratification of the 1961 constitution which would allow the continuance of stable and responsible government by both white and black, Mr. Smith as a responsible head of a nation with the welfare of the whole community at heart, refuses to be a party to handing power to groups which have clearly demonstrated that their only claims to government can be made through terrorism and subversion.

NEW ZEALAND M.P.'s TOUR SOUTHERN RHODESIA

While Australian papers have never hesitated to criticise the stand made by Southern Rhodesia against the folly which has swept the greater part of Africa, we have been forced to wait for reports from others sources for independent views of the truth of the so-called "racist" white government there. One such view was the report in the London Weekly review "East Africa and Rhodesia" on the visit to Rhodesia of members of the New Zealand Parliament.

Mr. J. H. George, M.P. Chief Government Whip in New Zealand, and two other members of the Parliament of that country, who attended the final session in Domboshawa of the indaba (an "indaba" is a native conference) of Rhodesian chiefs and headmen, have said that they were "very impressed with the most fair conduct of the indaba, which certainly showed no signs of having been rigged in any way". They felt that the chiefs had expressed their conviction that there would be peace and happiness in the country but for external interference. (our emphasis)

The leader of the delegation, Mr. George, paid tribute to the fairness of Mr. Harper, Minister of Internal Affairs, and the manner in which he had put the situation to the chiefs. As a result of their six-day visit, he and his colleagues had he said, a very different opinion of Rhodesia, which their Prime Minister had asked them to visit on their way to the annual meeting in Jamaica of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. They could thus speak with some personal knowledge when Rhodesia was discussed at the conference.

As a result of the indaba, which so impressed these visiting N.Z. parliamentarians, the Chiefs declared their loyalty to the Smith Government and their desire to see the 1961 Constitution ratified by the British Government as the basis of independence. The British Government had agreed to take note of the views expressed at the indaba, but subsequently dishonoured this agreement. The Chiefs later visited England and were badly treated by government officials there. They received threatening letters from Bantu terrorist organisations. All these details can be checked in the official government publication The Domboshawa Indaba which was published to give the world the other side of the story being presented through the world news agencies.

PEKING : THE ARMY : MARXIST IDEOLOGY

In an article in the Melbourne Age E.S. Warren comments on the new Peking decision to abolish ranks in the Chinese Communist army. He presents it as part of "the most gigantic ideological remoulding campaign ever carried out anywhere in the world." "The intent is to have a one-thought nation with every individual following the thought of Mao Tse Tung."
This policy ran into trouble in the army where "officers had grown accustomed to privilege and were reluctant to take part in the class struggle: soldiers could not avoid being diverted from the grind of the class struggle by the lure of working for promotion." "Rank diverted attention from the political goal so it was sacrificed."

This thought of Mao Tse Tung is orthodox Marxist-Leninism as he continually asserts. It is dedicated to the suppression of all religion save that of state worship and socialist leader idolatry.
His writings on these matters leave no doubt whatsoever. Yet this is the teaching, which certain so called Christian leaders tell us we must not oppose. In fact Dr. Carpenter whose views we reported last week evidently considers Chinese Communism superior in many ways to Christianity. It is thought provoking to know that Dr. Carpenter as a Bishops Chaplain acts as an adviser to clergy with problems and in fact is acting in this capacity in Australia!

We can but wonder at the type of advice he is handing out to unsuspecting anglican clergy.

The institution of the group ideal, which both the Dr. and Mao Tse Tung subscribe, is the denial of mans divinity: The only sin for which Christ said there was no forgiveness. (Mark 3:29)

THE YUGOSLAVIA-U.S.S.R. ALLIANCE

Ever since the Communist trained Tito took over the control of conquered Yugoslavia, he's been painted by the press as an ally of the west who would save Yugoslavia from the Russians. Competent non-socialist observers have from the start stated he was and is a Communist. They were accused of over simplification, and the liberal complicators, ignoring facts, were granted a virtual monopoly of news space to expand their sophistries.

By ignoring twenty years of history refuting them, these pundits, from Lippman to Wilkie have continued to the present week to expound of differences between the Yugoslav and Russian Branch managers, of about as much importance as the way they brush their teeth. An A.A.P. news item of July 2 expresses surprise that Tito now appears to be returning to the Soviet fold. They read this interpretation from a joint Soviet Yugoslavia communique issued on July 1 after the conclusion of Tito's two week visit to Moscow.

The communique stressed agreement on the need for "comradely discussions on the most vital problems of the day, and their solution on the basis of Marxism-Leninism and Socialist internationalism". In it Tito backed the Moscow appeal for Communist unity "in the face of imperialist danger.

We can be assured however that the Lippman's and Wilkie's will try to convince us that this does not mean what it says.