WHAT IS GORBACHEV'S GAME?

by Eric D. Butler
Soviet leader Gorbachev's failure to persuade the U.S.A. to accept a programme, which would have avoided a ground war in the Middle East, might be construed as a major diplomatic defeat for Gorbachev. But the evidence suggests that exactly the opposite is the reality. It is important to remember that Gorbachev came to power with the backing of the K.G.B. His mentor was the former head of the K.G.B., Andropov.

A careful study of Gorbachev's statements shows that he has consistently maintained that he is a Communist and a Marxist-Leninist. He well understands how to apply the Marxist-Leninist dialectic. His central theme has been that Communism must be "reformed". He frankly admits the failure of the Soviet economic system, and his major purpose has been to persuade the West to provide him with the massive foreign credits he needs to sustain the Soviet Union. He has vehemently rejected Alexander Solzhenitsyn's proposal that the Soviet Union should be disbanded. He has made his position brutally clear by using naked force to prevent the Baltic States from leaving the Soviet Union.

Backed by the K.G.B. and the Soviet military leaders, Gorbachev insists that there is going to be no centralisation of power along the lines advocated by his main political opponent, Boris Yeltsin. In his attempt to negotiate in a conflict to which the Soviet had been a major contributor, Gorbachev has displayed a longer view of the future of the Middle East than President George Bush and his advisers; men like the disastrous Dr. Henry Kissinger.

Gorbachev knows that irrespective of how the Gulf War ends, the Middle East will be more destabilised than it was before, and that there is a rapidly mounting anti-American ferment throughout the whole of the Moslem world. He is also very conscious of the fact that there are now at least 50 million Moslems living in the Soviet Union, the majority of these in the South of the Soviet Union and influenced by what is happening among their fellow Moslems.

Gorbachev had nothing to lose and everything to gain by his attempt to halt the Gulf conflict. His status throughout the Middle East has been increased and hopefully if it appears that he is in the position to play a leading role in the Middle East settlement, which will take place after the military defeat of Saddam Hussein, this will help him to shore up his critical position inside the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev has from the beginning of his coming to office had the backing of the internationalists everywhere. Zionist leader Edgar Bronfman has said that Gorbachev is the greatest Russian since Peter the Great. Gorbachev has made an agreement with Zionist leaders to move at least one million Russian Jews to Israel.
There are a number of respectable anti-Communists who hold the view that the whole of the Gorbachev strategy, including the loosening of Communist control in Eastern Europe, has been a grand dialectical ploy to dissolve N.A.T.O., to generate a new atmosphere of peaceful coexistence, and to gain massive financial and economic aid from the West.

But if this were the original intention of those backing Gorbachev, it is certain that the movement set in motion has got out of hand and that the nationalist upsurge everywhere must either end with the Soviet disintegrating or that the Soviet K.G.B. and hard line Soviet leaders will use naked force in an attempt to hold the Soviet together. This could result in a new Soviet Dictatorship, still possessing nuclear weapons and a massive military force. This is no time for the West to be reducing its military defence anywhere.

THE DECLINE OF THE WEST

The use of awesome technological military power by the U.S.A. against Iraq masks the fact that the U.S.A. as a nation is in serious decline. There are American thinkers who believe that the nation is suffering from a terminal internal disease, manifestations of which can be seen in the capital Washington and other big cities. Violent crime is dramatically increasing; drug consumption is soaring, while growing social friction is a demonstration of the failure of multicultural societies.
Only the Gulf War has temporarily taken the minds of the American people off their horrendous finance economic problems. The debt structure is now so astronomical that the figures being used have ceased to have meaning. Unemployment, worst among Blacks and growing ethnic groups, including the Hispanics, continues to rise.

North of the American border the Canadian Confederation struggles to survive. If Quebec carries through the threat to leave the Canadian Confederation, and in the absence of any constructive policies, the overall situation must worsen. The re-unification of Germany has not resulted in the anticipated results, rather the opposite, with the popularity of the present German Government dramatically declining. The European Economic Community is looking progressively less like an association, which offers the glowing results, promised from it. Not surprisingly, it is reported that British resistance to the E.E.C. is mounting.

The global situation highlights the urgent necessity for Australia to start adopting a comprehensive programme for defending the nation. This means economic, military and political defence. With every new industry which closes, as a result of the Hawke-Keating policy of "internationalising" the Australian economy, the capacity of the nation to defend itself is further eroded. The Victorian City of Geelong is in a state of shock as it is now seen that, along with a number of the manufacturing industries already closed down, the biggest employer, the car industry, is also scheduled to be phased out. Where now are all those critics of the League of Rights, which warned years ago about the New International Economic Order programme, with the progressive "restructuring" of whole sectors of Australian industry, both primary and secondary?

As we have constantly stated, so far from the alleged end of the Cold War ushering in an era of greater peace and stability, greater convulsions were ahead. And those convulsions will be greater after the Gulf War. The essence of the global drama is nationalism versus internationalism; centralised power versus decentralised power. What will the West's reaction be if Boris Yeltsin triumphs over Gorbachev in Russia? Solzhenitsyn is pointing the direction in which the West should be moving. Members of the old British world are best equipped to give a lead. But time is fast running out.

BRIEF COMMENTS

The hopeless ineptitude of the Victorian Opposition parties reflects the nature of the disease affecting the Federal Opposition parties. Liberal leader Brown in Victoria has been huffing and puffing for months about what he is going to do to enable Victorians to sweep from office the worst government in the history of the State. Instead of using the constitutional powers, which enable the Upper House to force an early election by cutting off the government's money supply, Mr. Brown now talks about merely blocking every piece of legislation put up by the Labor Government. The Opposition has announced no clear-cut programme of what it proposes to do when elected. Its leaders haven't even enunciated a policy concerning the Pyramid affair. The Federal Opposition basically agrees with the Hawke-Keating programme, the only new suggestion being that a disastrous consumption tax should be implemented. In his Alfred Deakin address last year, N.S.W. Liberal Premier Griener said in spite of what they said, there was now little basic difference between the political parties. Well, Mr. Griener should know!

Reserve Bank Governor Bernie Fraser said last week that there could be no reduction in interest rates until inflation was at least halved. As there is little prospect of this reduction in inflation taking place under present financial policies, then the nation is doomed to suffer destructive high interest rates. Mr. Fraser and his fellow "experts" are completely bankrupt of any suggestion for modifying policies, which are destroying the nation.

American policy makers have said they appreciate Australian support, relatively small though it has been, in the conflict with Iraq. But Australian wheat growers, who have suffered further reductions in wheat prices as a result of the U.S.A. pouring heavily subsidised grain on to the world markets, are wondering about the question of loyalties between military allies. Some of the cheap American grain has been used to help ensure that Egypt remained loyal to the anti-Iraq coalition. The U.S.A. wrote off Egypt's debt, while a $140 million loan to Communist China helped to ensure that the Chinese Marxists did not use their U.N. veto power. The U.S.A. finally paid off $187 million of its debt to the U.N. after the vote sought by President Bush was obtained.

JUSTICE MUST PREVAIL IN PALESTINE

QUESTIONABLE BANKING

from Herald-Sun, February 18th
"In 1921, Sir Denison Miller, Governor of the Commonwealth Bank, said: 'Anything that this country can physically achieve and will loyally support, the bank can make financially possible'. "In 1937, Mr. Justice Napier, in an enquiry into banking and money, said: 'The Bank (The Commonwealth Bank was our Reserve Bank at that time) can make finance available to government and to others at low interest, no interest, and where necessary without requiring repayment principal'.
"Checking with the Treasury I have been told that, yes, the Commission did say that the Bank could make finance available, but it did not say, should. "In 1940, Senator Darcy asked the Treasurer why the Government did not use the facility indicated by Justice Napier. "The Senator was told that 'the Government chooses not to do so.
"The fact that the machinery exists to finance our national affairs without debt, yet the governments persist with methods incurring massive debt, and hardship for the people of this country, would indicate that:
a) Our politicians are ignorant of the power of the Reserve Bank to create our financial credit costlessly, or:
b) Our governments are not in control of this essential factor in our economic life.

"If either (a) or (b) pertains, it must surely preclude such politicians from holding office. "If the system, with the existing rules and conventions, is workable, assuming the aim is to benefit national populations, then obviously our economists and financiers are incompetent. "If the system is not workable then it must be changed.

"Pertinent to the above points, the Charter of the Reserve Bank states in part:
1) The Bank shall operate to maintain the value of the Australian currency.
2) The Bank shall operate to the advantage of the Australian people.
3) The Bank shall operate to maintain full employment.

"Is the Reserve Bank being operated according to its Charter?" (Ralph Provan, Seymour)

Note: The Reserve Bank was established as Australia's central bank in 1960. Up to that time, the Commonwealth Bank operated as Australia's central bank.

WHEN IT COMES TO SOCIAL CONTROL, LESS IS MORE