WAR WAGED BY BRITAIN AGAINST RHODESIA

Who amongst us could have thought that as the Commonwealth Nations emerged successfully out of the struggle against totalitarian tyranny in l939-45 that the parent nation would within a short twenty years take upon herself the role of the defeated enemy to make war against one of her most loyal allies. Not only are we justified by the events of the past two weeks in accusing Britain of making war against Rhodesia, but also we ourselves in Australia by mutual consent of imposing sanctions, and failure to disassociate ourselves from the Wilson Governments action joined in this criminal folly.

When Mr. Wilson based his actions on the result of an appeal to a world body, which is largely dominated by Communists and their stooges, he was in effect appealing to Caesar for the only answer that he knew Caesar could give, "use force". He knew he could never justify such a course of action on the basis of British tradition. Nor could he ever get an endorsement from the British people for such action. The UN decision to permit Britain to use force to stop oil going into Biera, indicates the ugly shape of things to come. Never before in history has a nation had its sovereignty interfered with in time of peace, as has Portugal - Britain's oldest ally. The Security Council's decision was based on the George Orwellian view, not that there is any actual breach of the peace, but that there could be if Rhodesia continues to get oil.

The voting to bring South Africa in indicates what is likely to happen if Rhodesia continues to get oil through South Africa. There is absolutely no threat of war, and yet the UN Charter has been twisted to justify what is in fact an act of war against Rhodesia - Europeans and blacks. International law has now surely taken on a completely new meaning.

How do Australia's politicians justify support for a naked interference in the internal affairs of other nations? The precedent has been set, and the situation is inevitably moving towards a crisis point.

THE U.SA. BRITAIN & RHODESIA

For what comfort there may be gained from it, it does appear at the moment that the crisis facing Rhodesia is one which will not include U.S.A. beyond the measures she has taken, if a recent report is to be taken at face value. The Age (Melbourne) 16th April reports Washington officials as intimating that the U.S. has gone as far as she can go against Rhodesia. They have warned Britain that if the UN approves force against Rhodesia, Britain, in effect, will be on its own.
Growing concern is also expressed that the invoking of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, has "Opened a Pandora's box of potential troubles. Chapter 7 deals with the UN waging war itself to forestall "threats to the peace and acts of aggression." In order to stretch this to cover action in the dispute between Britain and Rhodesia, the Security Council has had to "develop " the words of the Charter.

The Age special correspondent summarises the truth,
"For there can be no doubt the British quarrel with Rhodesia is a quarrel within the Commonwealth. Ian Smith's rebellion against the British Crown is not an act of aggression by one sovereign state against another."
So much for the world arbiter on Law, Justice and Peace, "It's a bit of a joke" said Ian Smith.

THE RED BUDDHIST IN YELLOW ROBES

Thich Tri Quang who instigated the latest militant Buddhist outburst in Vietnam has been a red thread through Vietnamese politics for 20 years. In 1963 Madam Nhu called him "A Red in Yellow robes."
In 1945 he studied Marxism in Hanoi and fled at the outbreak of the Indo-Chinese war against France, to a communist stronghold.

Beverly Deep, a correspondent for "The Australian" recounts some details of his background in a dispatch of April 14th. Especially significant are the comments of a Vietnamese official.
"His (Thich Tri Quang's) face is pale - without blood - you might say cold-blooded. He is logical and talks better than a Communist Cadre. He mixes his language with Communist and Buddhist terminology."

The Vietnam police are cited as saying that he has been in contact with the National Liberation Front, the political backbone of the Viet Cong guerillas. This then is the pro-Communist background of the figure behind the Buddhist student riots and the street burning of Buddhist clergy which aroused such sympathy from some of our loose thinking humanitarians.

MR. HASLUCK'S LOOSE THINKING

The Australian of April 15, reports some incredible statements from Australia's Minister for External Affairs Mr. Paul Hasluck. Talking about the problem of Communist China he said that China would have to be "contained" as a first step to coexistence.

To even accept "co-existence" as a laudable objective when dealing with Communist tyranny indicates a lamentable lack of understanding of the real objectives of Communism. Mr. Hasluck then proceeded with false alternatives,
"It is not a question of abolishing China. It is a question of co-existence with it."

But his greatest pearl of wisdom came when he said experience had shown that Russia had to be contained before co-existence was possible.

Now we know what Australia's policy is towards the Communist conspiracy. With the Russian section we are pals and mates, we coexist, but with the nasty Chinese, we have to tame them before we co-exist. It would appear even to the superficial observer that there are some nasty leaks in the container of the Russian brand of Communism. Mr. Castro for instance co-exists nicely with Russian Communism to the tune of being the espionage base for the South American continent, and continues his activities primarily because of the support he gets from his fellow Communists in Russia.
Then there are the missiles in North Vietnam and the launching pads built by Russian experts to enable these Russian missiles to shoot down American planes in Vietnam. The Russian Communists however practice containment a lot more efficiently than we in the West. They do not allow any leakage from those subject peoples they are successfully containing in Eastern Europe. This does not seem to worry Mr. Hasluck.

LITHIUANIANS PROTEST

While Mr. Hasluck was busy comforting the Russian Communists with his talk in the U.S.A. his own parliament in Canberra was playing host to some of these fine products of "co-existence". They successfully used the platform we supplied them to attack our policies in Vietnam. However they did not depart entirely unscathed, but not due to any action taken by the Australian Government. It was left to groups of Lithuanians to protest against the so-called "parliamentary representatives" from Russia. Especially were they protesting against Mr. J. I. Paletskis, the leader of the Soviet delegation and "Premier" of Lithuania. They claimed that Mr. Paletskis betrayed his country in 1940 and sold out to the Russians. Mr. Paletskis just could not understand how such a demonstration could take place. It certainly was not his idea of co-existence. "It would not have happened in Moscow", he said. How true!

But we never learn. How stupidly we provide these people with platforms for their anti-Christian propaganda. Perhaps the mechanical mouthing by the Soviet section of the same propaganda line, and often the same phrases as those of our own "liberal" socialists may serve as a lesson to the government. If government members are under any delusion that logical discussion and balanced decisions will result from such a gathering, then may God forgive their stupidity!

Ours is the only point of view, which can be influenced to change, theirs is as rigid as the iron curtain, which entraps their populations.

THE "CHANGED" KENYATTA

ATTACK ON LEAGUE BY "RHODESIAN" REPRESENTATIVE

On the ABV2 presentation of Four Corners on Saturday 16th Mr. Andrew Cavendish-Wise a Public Relations Consultant who represents the Rhodesian Government in matters such as publicity, made an intemperate attack on the Australian League of Rights and the independent journal, Australian International News Review. League members were "extreme" and suffered from "paronoia" and had "inferiority complexes ".

Mr. Wise followed his attack the following Monday in The Australian by attacking Mr. Norman Banks the well known broadcaster who has probably done more to present Rhodesia's case than any other single Australian.

It would be interesting to know what motivates this man who continually protests his love for Rhodesia, but spends most of his public appearances attacking those who for no reward are endeavoring against great odds to make sure that Rhodesia's voice is heard in Australia.