RHODESIA CHALLENGES WORLD REVOLUTIONARIES

The self-righteous critics of Rhodesia's declaration of independence might study with great profit Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice". Shylock certainly could claim that his demand for his pound of flesh was strictly in accordance with the letter of the law. He was not interested in the spirit of justice. There is no question that Mr. Ian Smith and his Government has acted illegally. But the point cannot be stressed too strongly that Mr. Harold Wilson acted like Shylock. He claimed that he was acting strictly within the legal agreement between Rhodesia and Britain. And so he was. But he attempted to use this legal agreement to force Mr. Ian Smith to betray Civilisation.

From the moment he came to office, Mr. Wilson threatened the Rhodesians, and constantly applied pressure in an endeavour to force them to introduce policies which would be disastrous for all Rhodesians, both European and African. Faced with the alternative of surrendering to the forces of international subversion, or of declaring unilaterally for independence in order to try to save his country, Mr. Ian Smith decided that if he were to go down, he would at least go down fighting. He stands for justice for all his people. He rightly believes that justice is more important than the letter of the law.

NEXT MONDAY. NOVEMBER 22. "THE CASE FOR RHODESIA". PRESENTED BY MR. ERIC BUTLER. FEDERAL HOTEL. COLLINS STREET, MELBOURNE 8 PM. SELECTIONS FROM TAPED INTERVIEWS WITH IAN SMITH AND SIR ROY WELENSKY WILL BE HEARD. AN URGENT MEETING TO MEET A GREAT CRISIS.

NEW GUINEA - RUSSIAN TRADE

CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF RHODESTAN INDEPENDENCE

The following extracts are reprinted from an article in the Rhodesian Mercury 4.11.65, written by a Constitutional lawyer. They make it clear that Rhodesia was before U.D.I. an independent, self-governing state. The fact is that the British Socialist government was acting unconstitutionally and endeavouring to bluff the Rhodesian government into an alteration of her constitution. We reprint the comments of the lawyer and the relevant sections setting out the respective rights of the Rhodesian and British Governments,

"What was the object and purpose of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution, 1961? That was set out clearly and concisely in the White Paper (Cmnd 1399) Part 1, the introduction to which state (at page 3):
"The proposed new Constitution, is based on the conclusions of the Conference, will reproduce many of the provisions of the existing Constitution. It will eliminate ALL the reserved powers at present vested in the Government of the United Kingdom, save for certain matters set out in paragraph 50: and it will confer upon Southern Rhodesia wide powers for the amendment of her own Constitution."

Paragraph 50 was equally clear and emphatic: "50. Under the new proposals, Southern Rhodesia will be free to make amendments to any section of the Constitution without reference to the United Kingdom, with the exception of the amendments, which would affect: (a) the position of the Sovereign and the Governor; the right of the United Kingdom Government to safeguard the position regarding: (1) international obligation; (11) undertaking given by the Government of Southern Rhodesia in respect of loans under the Colonial Stock Acts. (White Paper, Part 1. at page 10).

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON RHODESIA

While we are sure that Sir Robert Menzies is aware of the relevant matters such as the above, as a politician he has allowed the forces of "world opinion" to dictate his thinking. He now finds himself lined up, as has happened before, with the Socialists, against those trying to preserve individual liberty. We may well ask Sir Robert whether he will be prepared to give a lead in withdrawing recognition by the Australian Government from the United States of America who declared their independence in 1776 in violent form without any wish to remain loyal to the monarch or to remain in the Empire, both matters being the desire of the Rhodesian peoples.
Further we may ask Sir Robert in view of his governments policy of trading with Communist countries, does he consider the Rhodesian Government more dangerous than the Communists who have sworn to destroy us?
Also will he join with the Socialist Mr. Wilson in allowing the Communists in the United Nations to decide the future of Rhodesia?

The position the Australian Government has adopted is hypocritical to say the least. If not then there should be an immediate move to withdraw recognition from the Communists and to impose an immediate trade embargo on them.

PROFESSOR HUGH TREVOR-ROPER DIAGNOSES THE SICK MIND OF CHINA

We become so accustomed to reading the glowing reports of people taken on conducted tours of Red China, that a critical review such as that made by Professor Trevor-Roper in the Melbourne "Age" ll.ll.65 comes as a complete rarity. Professor Trevor Roper unlike most of those reporting on China is careful to distinguish between material progress and the cultural, mental and spiritual freedom in China. These latter are rapidly being destroyed.

To the brainwashed Chinese of today all history started in 1949. If anything of beauty or utility was created in the pre 1949 era it was "by wisdom of the labouring people". This type of propaganda is incessant said Professor Roper,".. to be beset, for three weeks by ignorant "guides"; to be severed, apparently on purpose, from all intelligent contact; to be drenched daily with identical tabloid propaganda adapted to the minds of peasant children - this is a terrible fate, hardly compensated by even the most generous hospitality."

The complete materialism of the Communists is revealed in their reasons for teaching the English language. "To the Chinese, it is not a means of entry to English literature or English thought. It is a means of bargaining for English machine-tools and of preaching Communist propaganda to Indians and Africans."

INCLUSION OF RED CHINA IN U.N. - EDITORIAL HYPOCRICY

The editorial of "The Australian" 11.11.65 advocating inclusion of Red China in the UN is not on a very high intellectual or patriotic level. Arguing from the false base that the Socialist riddled U.N. is an instrument of peace it says, "Australia must agree in principle to the admission of Red China to the U.N. even though that country represents an ideology and a way of life we oppose; even though it threatens our peace and security." Apparently our peace, security and way of life are of secondary importance to some other aim.

Contrast this tolerance towards a rigid Soviet inspired minority military government and the editorial attitude to Rhodesian independence. Here it again joins with the entire international socialist bloc in urging this time the downfall of Mr. Smith and his overwhelmingly elected government. The November 15th editorial even expresses some satisfaction that the Rhodesian situation may lead to the final disintegration of the Commonwealth, "for we have been misleading ourselves for too long that the old ways of the Commonwealth are necessarily the best."

DR. JOHN GUNTHER & NEW GUINEA INDEPENDENCE

SOCIALISED MEDICINE UNDER THE LIBERALS

Evidence presented in Parliament shows that the National Health Scheme is running up against the usual problems of inefficiency and irresponsibility, which is the hallmark of government interference in activities which are primarily the responsibility of the individual. Ironically enough, the government was twitted by the Labor Socialists for their inefficiency in allowing costs to get out of hand. Now the government proposes to have an investigation, which will only make the cost of running the scheme so much higher to the taxpayer.

According to the Labour opposition fantastic fees are being paid to the doctors out of taxpayers funds, while one of the firms appointed to help in the investigation had a vested interest in the manufacture of drugs. There is no substitute for the principal of allowing the individual to be responsible for spending his own money. It is time the Liberals got back to fundamental beliefs applying them to abolition of socialism.