WILL WILSON REALLY NEGOTIATE

We have every reason to be thankful for recent developments in regards to Rhodesia. Following Senator Gorton's statement just prior to Mr. Hasluck's return from overseas, this was followed by an equally strong statement by Mr. Hasluck who said he had made it clear to Mr. Wilson and also to U Thant that Australia would not impose further restrictions upon Rhodesia. According to The Australian 29.4.66 Mr. Hasluck implied that the Government was not happy about them being involved in a policy of sanctions against Rhodesia, and on no account would support a policy of force against Rhodesia.
It is significant that with these developments Wilson has made moves to open discussions with the Rhodesian Government. The initiative undoubtedly has been undertaken by Wilson, and his "loss of face" after all of his loud trumpeting about how he would never negotiate with the "illegal" and "rebel" government is only slightly hidden by the favourable and slanted press reports endeavouring to protect him.

However it is far too early to be optimistic and believe that Wilson will retreat. We are only at the beginning of the dialectic exercise, which conditions the thinking of such dedicated socialists. It may well be that Wilson will make a pretense at opening negotiations on terms impossible to Rhodesia. With the rejection of such terms he will then be justified in using the force, which is so dear to the hearts of all dedicated socialists who come up against the realities of uncompromising opposition. The use of force or retreat is the only alternatives open to Mr. Wilson.

PRESIDENT KAUNDA WAVES THE CLUB AGAIN

It must be frustrating for Mr. Kaunda, President of Zambia, Rhodesia's neighbour. Having gained power by all the methods, which the Rhodesians have rejected he continually postures and threatens to take action. After all it paid off in every other case, with "world opinion" the U.N. and every device of power being used to bring magical "independence" to the black nationalists.
Mr. Kaunda must be continually asking himself why it has not been successful against Rhodesia.

His petulance showed again in the week-end when he announced that he would give Britain seven days to move against Rhodesia, at the end of which he would "make Zambia's position clear." Mr. Kaunda can only rely upon sophisticated warfare on Rhodesia from resources other than his own. His further statement that "life in Zambia would not be worth living" could well allude to his own political demise, Zambia has become the harbour of highly organised terrorist organisations and the terror of the Congo could well be unleashed upon the hapless Zambians.

MR. HOLT: MR. McNAMARA: VIETNAM

Mr. Holt's observations regarding the realities of the war in Vietnam are pertinent and to the point, however they are not the full story. When observing that the picture painted of Vietnam by the press was not the reality of the situation in Vietnam, Mr. Holt was merely coming up against one aspect of the real war as waged by the International Communist conspiracy, namely that of propaganda being used incessantly to soften up the western world.
It needs to be stressed continually that the real war for South Vietnam is not being fought in that country.

At least two reports in the last week are significant in this respect.
First the report that American planes meeting Communist planes would recognise "no sanctuary" for them. This report emanated from the State Department and immediately caused a flurry of counter denials by those who have consistently supported the "no-win" policy against Communism. Among these is Mr. Robert McNamara the U.S. Secretary for Defence.
In an important interview given by Mr. McNamara and Mr. Ball, the Under Secretary of State, foreign policy matters were dealt with including the "no sanctuary" issue.

Amongst a lot of double talk on this issue Mr. McNamara clearly defined present U.S. policy. "Our objective in Vietnam is very limited," "It is not to overthrow the Communist Government of North Vietnam. It is only to permit the South Vietnamese to choose their own institutions under which to live." Melbourne "Age" 4.5.66.

Such a statement gives the Communists great heart. They know whatever mistakes they make, so long as this is Western policy then it is only a matter of time before they win. Western patriots have the task of changing their Governments policy of containment before they have any hope of defeating the Communists. There are many indications that this battle can be won.
That the proposal of "no sanctuary" has arisen is indicative of this, and should give incentive to patriots to push forward.

MR. HASLUCK AND YUGOSLAVIA

The announcement by Mr. Paul Hasluck Minister for External-Affairs, that Australia would exchange Ambassadors with Yugoslavia is indicative of the loose thinking, which has characterised Mr. Hasluck's approach to the problem of dealing with Communism ever since he took over the important job of handling Australia's foreign policy. Shortly after taking the job Mr. Hasluck went to Russia and came back advocating increased trade and exchange of "cultural" groups. On his recent trip he made the astonishing assertion Russia had been successfully "contained", and that we should pursue a similar policy with China before we could expect her to be friendly.
In other words, adding this latest proposal to all the rest, Mr. Hasluck's main policy towards Communism is appeasement. This was the policy Lenin predicted would bring about the Communist victory over the West.

We have every reason to believe that Mr. Hasluck is a very decent fellow, but he seems to allow this sentiment to fashion his dealings with ruthless international gangsters, believing they will act similarly to him. A fruitless hope.

CABOT LODGE AND THE CATHOLICS IN VIETNAM

"DEMOCRACY" IN KENYA

That outstanding democrat Mr. Jomo Kenyatta President of Kenya continues to show his true colours and in the process reflect the realities of African politics as practiced in the newly "independent" nations of Africa. Faced with a revolt from his one party parliament he has decreed that those opposed to him should resign their seats and seek re-election. In this case the incipient revolt is lead by Mr. Odinga. Odinga the Marxist revolutionary who is reported to be organising a return of the Mau Mau to Kenya.
While in this case it is former friends falling out in the struggle for power, the tactics being used are only a variation of those used to bring misery and chaos to a land which previously was one of the loveliest and most peaceful in Africa.

It is obvious from the report in "The Australian" 3.5.66 that Mr. Kenyatta was using the same appeal to the superstitious mind of the Africans to oust Mr. Odinga and his followers, as he used to bring about the Mau Mau revolt.

THE CONTROL OF THE POLICE

Communist policy in western countries is to continuously undermine the forces of law and order. The police force comes in for special attention. With all the attendant problems of the huge urbanised communities resulting from the over centralised concentration of economic and political power, the police forces throughout the western world have an unenviable task. Being human and subject to great strain there is no doubt that some policemen depart from the strict codes of discipline and honour which is traditionally the backbone of Australian police forces.
It has become traditional for the police force, as with the Army, to discipline its own malefactors, with the safeguard of both forces being responsible to the parliaments through the appropriate Minister.

There have been signs recently of standard Communist techniques of undermining confidence in the police forces. After the demonstrations organised against conscription and Vietnam invariably the police have been accused of employing undue harshness in controlling such demonstrations. In America this type of criticsm has been consistently and widely promoted leading to the establishment of civilian boards of review for police forces. These boards are open to penetration by those concerned to use the police as a political instrument. It is to be hoped that the recent controversy in N.S.W. over the controls of the police will not lead to any departure such as mentioned above.

SANCTIONS ON SOUTH AFRICA?

The abstruse oriental mind of U Thant demonstrated itself in a recent report in The Melbourne "Age" 3.5.66
"The situation in South Africa posed a threat to international peace and security, in the view of a majority of the UN member states," U Thant said.

Well now! There has been no fighting or violence in South Africa ever since they took steps to control the minority of Communist revolutionaries organizing terrorist activities. Perhaps it is this deplorable lack of violence, unlike the U.N. activities wherever they interfere, which perplexes U. Thant. And no doubt he wishes to remedy the situation in line with the proposed activities initiated by the Communists in South Africa.

ON TARGET BULLETIN
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : THE LEGALITY OF U.D.I.

One of the most difficult hurdles facing those who defend the Declaration of Independence by the Rhodesians is the oft-repeated statement that such a Declaration amounted to an illegal act. One parliamentarian with whom we have had correspondence and personal discussion points to and underlines a sentence on page 12 of RHODESIA - Independence: Historical and Legal Factors, a publication many of you will have received from the Department of Information Services.

The sentence reads,
"The independence which is Rhodesia's right required the technical assent of Her Majesty the Queen."

The politician in question wrongly (in the opinion of this writer, you may have other views) points to this sentence as evidence that independence for Rhodesia could only be granted by the British parliament. If this document is read carefully it is clear that Rhodesia's only relationship with the British on constitutional matters was a direct relationship with the Queen. Admittedly it is difficult to separate the Queen from the authority of the British parliament. But such a view is dependent upon the belief that the Queen is subject to the British parliament. The Rhodesians believe the situation is otherwise.
The question is has the Queen ever been able to express an independent opinion in this matter?

If this matter is looked at closely it can be understood why Mr. Wilson was so anxious to keep the Rhodesians away from the Queen. It also explains why our members when writing on this subject find it impossible to get any answers from the Queen or her representatives. The matter should be pursued to the utmost.

The issue raises matters of the greatest importance in the future of Constitutional government in this country and the rest of these Commonwealth countries, which still acknowledge the Queen as the constitutional head of their government. Pages twelve and thirteen of the above publication should be studied closely, and letters written to the Governor-General and the Attorney-General seeking advice, as well as pointing up the illegality of the British Government's stand.