FROM THE GULF WAR TO BOSNIA

by Eric D. Butler
Regular readers of this journal will recall that it warned that Saddam Hussein of Iraq had been "set up" to make the Gulf War possible. This warning was not based upon any support for Saddam Hussein, a typical Middle East tyrant, but upon a close study of the long-term policies of international power elites.

During the period leading up to the Gulf War, little or no reference was made in the mass media that Saddam Hussein has been the recipient of massive military aid from the West. The media generally attempted to create the impression that Iraq was little more than a client Soviet-State. But while the Soviet did supply considerable military equipment, subsequently proved to have been of poor quality, it was Western support which enabled Iraq eventually to have forced Iran to end its bloody conflict with Iraq. Western military intelligence was of tremendous assistance to Saddam Hussein.

Why did the West build Saddam Hussein up militarily and support him in the long conflict with Iran, a conflict, which cost an estimated one million lives? Saddam Hussein was seen as a barrier to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, which had brought the Ayatollah Khomeiny to power in Iran. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Kuwait all feared the possible spread of Islamic fundamentalism westward. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was perceived to be a barrier to the perceived threat. This important historical fact is ignored by those who now feel it is safe to publicise how Saddam Hussein was built up by the West.

The latest contribution to the truth about Western arming of Saddam Hussein provided in an Allen and Unwin publication, The Death Lobby, is by Kenneth F. Timmeran, which documents in some detail the massive Western military aid to Saddam Hussein. While it is undoubtedly true that Western manufacturers were delighted with having a lucrative market for their weapons of death, helping them to obtain what all certified economists recommend, a "favourable balance of trade", they were merely taking advantage of the high policies of those advising their governments.
Those policy makers were recommending military and economic support for Saddam Hussein even after the end of the Iraq-Iran conflict in August 1988. American firms were being encouraged to establish themselves in Iraq with the U.S.A. becoming the biggest purchaser of Iraqi oil.

Only four months before Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, encouraged by what he believed to be encouraging signals from Washington, U.S.A. Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly was describing Saddam Hussein as "a force for moderation in the region." Having been armed by the Western powers, and encouraged to believe that he could safely take over Kuwait, Saddam Hussein suddenly discovered that he was but a pawn in a much bigger game. President Bush and his advisers were ready to take action, not only to restore democracy in Kuwait, which has never had democracy but to create a "New World Order".

Saddam Hussein's military capacity was grossly exaggerated in order to convince Western peoples that the defeat of Hussein required a massed international force. The reality was completely different with Iraq suffering massive casualties and enormous damage to Baghdad. And there was the astonishing sequel of Saddam Hussein's government being permitted to survive. Clearly Hussein was still required to prevent the development of a vacuum threatened to be filled by Islamic fundamentalism.

Behind the tragic developments in what was formerly known as Yugoslavia can be seen the hand of the long-term planners who created and then exploited Saddam Hussein. Communist dominated Serbia, aided by the West, directly and indirectly, has proceeded with a policy of "ethnic cleansing" which threatens the very existence of the Islamic population of Bosnia. The so-called "peacekeeping" operations of the West have been almost completely futile. The activities of the Serbian Government are, at least for the time being, supported by the West. The short-term policy is to minimise the Islamic influence in the Balkan, and, if possible, to condition the Western people to participate in another U.N. "peacekeeping" operation.

The planners behind the Grand Design of creating The New World Order are being thwarted by unrehearsed events and resistance everywhere. But they rush on with their insane programme, one that crumbles with every day that passes. Consider the state of "United" Europe: As students of history have predicted, every programme for centralising power is doomed from the beginning. The lessons behind the Gulf War and the break up of the former Yugoslavia are clear to all those not blinded by shallow propaganda.

KEATING SEEKS JAPANESE IMPERIAL PATRONAGE

by David Thompson
The Prime Minister, in his visit to Japan last week, has attempted a major re-direction of the Australian trading and diplomatic alliances away from Europe and North America, and towards Asia. Mr. Keating continues his attempt to re-write history to his own advantage, and seeks to re-define Australia's national orientation in even more dramatic form than Prime Minister Curtin, who effectively changed Australia's primary diplomatic orientation from Britain to the United States during World War II.

In the drive to "Asianise" Australia, Mr. Keating's reported statements in Japan are of the greatest significance. He is trying to tell the world that our most important international relationship is not with North America (much less Britain), but with East Asia - specifically Japan. This marks another step in the process of locking Australia into the developing Asia-Pacific economic community, to be followed eventually by political union.

The establishment of an Asia-Pacific "region" which included Australia was originally an initiative of Bob Hawke's. It was Hawke who hosted regional leaders in Canberra, proposing the establishment of an Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation (A.P.E.C.) group as a counter balance to Indonesian proposals to exclude Australia from the developing Asian trading bloc.

Keating's Japanese initiatives must be coloured with the understanding that in the rest of Asia, Japan is strongly distrusted as a result of World War II. Australia is obviously seen as a diplomatic doorway through which the Japanese can more successfully pursue long-term Asian alliances if the North American Free Trade Alliance excludes Japan, as it undoubtedly must.

LOCKING AUSTRALIAN FORTUNES WITH JAPAN
Keating's decision to back Japan against the United States in the event of escalating trade warfare is illustrated by his incredible commitment never to join a trading block that excludes Japan. In a key speech to the powerful Japanese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Keating identified a shared commitment between Japan and Australia to "fair trade". This must be little more than a dream, as the Japanese system of industrial protection is legendary.

As the Japanese economy is showing further signs of weakness, it would seem extremely risky for Australian economic fortunes to be locked to those of Japan. The strengthening economic alliance with Japan must also have an impact on the Australian military alliances with the U.S.A. Unless Mr. Keating also proposes to retreat from the A.N.Z.U.S. alliance, and other security arrangements with the Americans, he faces an increasingly difficult balancing act between Asia and North America. This must become more difficult still if the U.S. moves further to protect its domestic industries, as Australia should also be doing.

JETTISONING EUROPEAN "BAGGAGE"
Mr. Keating also took the opportunity to further the Australian republican agenda, by seeking to assure the Japanese that traditional Australian cultural and political arrangements were to be changed. In an interview with the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, Keating claimed majority support in Australia for a republic, describing it as "inevitable". Asians must be puzzled that an Australian leader can denigrate his own cultural and political heritage in a fashion undreamed of in Asia. Keating obviously believes that the Australian transition into "Asia" will be smoothed if our European cultural "baggage" can be abandoned.

At the same time, however, Mr. and Mrs. Keating demonstrate either the hypocrisy of the double standard, or a deliberately servile attitude to Japan, by inviting the Japanese Emperor to visit Australia. This would be the first time a Japanese Emperor has visited Australia, and must provoke distinctly mixed emotions among returned servicemen who remember Japanese brutality 50 years ago.

How will Australia ex-servicemen regard Keating's rejection of our own monarch, and a deliberate attempt to embrace the Japanese monarch? Surely even Keating can see the hypocrisy of deriding our "imperial" past, only to replace it with another much more malignant imperialism! It is also significant that the Prime Minister's stronger pro-Japanese position was strongly welcomed by the Japanese press. It was noted that Keating supports a higher "international profile" for Japan, and also supported Japan's territorial claim to the disputed Kurlie Islands.
The leading left-wing daily paper described Keating as "one of those Asians" who is helping to build a new political landscape in Asia.

It is clear that Mr. Keating proposes to make good his boast to "Asianise" Australia, and in the process cast Australia in the role of a Japanese client who can help translate Japan's huge economic clout into political influence in building the Asia-Pacific Community into a long-term sovereign entity. The associated risks for Australia are enormous, but to Japan, very slight.

A.L.P ELECTION PROSPECTS IMPROVED

Recent polls indicate that an incredible transformation is taking place in the political fortunes of Mr. Keating and the A.L.P. When Bob Hawke was jettisoned, it was universally agreed that Keating's leadership offered only the slimmest hope of a Labor election victory. But The Bulletin's poll, published last week, indicated that if an election had been held in early September, the A.L.P. would have won on preferences! Even allowing for any major inaccuracies of opinion polling, this is an extremely ominous result for Dr. John Hewson. It can only reflect the hardening ideological position of the Opposition on tariffs - in particular their position on the motorcar industry.

Paul Keating was able to use his considerable 'debating' skills as a blunt instrument on Dr. Hewson and his colleagues, exploiting the conflict with car industry leaders. But it should be noted that the Government policy on tariffs, while it has softened, has not changed and remains almost identical to the Opposition policy. Irrespective of who becomes Prime Minister, general economic and financial policy is the same.
Electoral Comment authorised by Eric D. Butler, 145 Russell Street, Melbourne, 3000

ZIONISTS BACK CLINTON FOR U.S.A. PRESIDENCY

by Eric D. Butler
The Zionist internationalists have decided that President George Bush is no longer the best man to represent Zionist strategy. Even without Zionist backing, it has become increasingly clear that, unless there is an unforeseen political miracle, Democratic Presidential Candidate Bill Clinton will become the next President of the U.S.A. But the open Zionist support for Clinton makes it clear that the Zionists regard Clinton as the President who can best advance their long-term strategy.

Although the Democratic Party generally has been pro-Israel, 1992 saw a much stronger support for Zionist Israel. According to The Jewish Post, there has been a major increase in Jewish involvement in the Democratic Party. According to the Post, the Democratic Party platform is now "more pro-Israel than any ever adopted by the Democratic Party". Clinton has strongly endorsed the Democratic Party's platform on Israel. According to the Post Clinton has a number of Zionist advisers.

A study of the Zionist press in the U.S.A. provides striking confirmation of the fact that, in spite of his past services to the Zionist cause, President George Bush was regarded as expendable some time back. While historically the Democrat Party has been regarded more favourably by the Zionists than have the Republicans, there has been growing influence inside the Republican Party. Every student of international affairs must take careful note of the open Zionist campaign to bring Clinton to the American Presidency.

CONFLICTING STATEMENTS

GREENHOUSE FACTS WILT IN STRONG LIGHT

from The Australian, 24/9
In criticism of Frank Devine's article (The Australian, 7/9), the Acting Australian Statistician implicitly supports the greenhouse segment of the A.B.S. book, Australia's Environment: Issues and Facts (Letters, 10/9) "The Australian Statistician has admitted some errors (The Weekend Australian, 29-30/8) and glossed over others. What the A.B.S. has yet to admit - but inevitably must admit - is that the greenhouse segment is fatally flawed and must be rewritten.

"My critique, which triggered this debate (The Weekend Australian, 25-26/7), was intended to focus A.B.S. minds on corrective measures. Therefore criticism was concentrated on the book's speculations about environmental effects of greenhouse, culled from published proceedings of a 1987 conference, Greenhouse '87. I suggested two, simple, non-judgmental facts that an untutored A.B.C. clerk could check.

"First, the 1992 book is both out of date and internally inconsistent. For example, page 123 cites financial losses calculated for a 140cm rise in global sea level, based on the 1987 C.S.I.R.O. climate change scenario for the next 50 years. Two pages later, the A.B.S. book quotes the 1991 C.S.I.R.O. expectation for 2030 of less than one-fifth that rise 20cm, plus or minus 10cm.
"After the draft chapter was reviewed, the book's scenario was updated but the forecast was not. This is the classic phantasm that repeatedly bedevils Australian greenhouse policies.

"Second, detailed comparisons of the published scientific papers with the A.B.S. versions show significant errors and misquotes. Each error favours alarums. "In his widely circulated 15-page letter to me, the Australian Statistician inferred that this critique by comparisons was nitpicking (The Weekend Australian, 29-30/8). For example, while he admits the misquote 'the wheat belt of the south-west of Western Australia may cease to be cultivated' (page 119) was a 'drafting slip', he claims 'The error is obvious ... clearly only part of the wheat belt might be affected! "Five million tonnes of wheat is quite a bit.
"But other failings, further indicative of lack of balance in the A.B.S. book, cannot be trivialised by anyone. They were deliberately omitted from my July critique because they are more judgmental.

"One example is treatment of costs and benefits or reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By quoting from only one report, to Minister Kelly's department, the book predicts massive benefits from carbon dioxide reductions. It does not quote from balancing views from the extensive inquiry by the Industrial Commission.

"In summary, the book's portrayal of the effects of greenhouse on the Australian environment is dominated by outdated speculations, inaccurately reported, internal inconsistency and a lack of balance on policy-related issues. "Unfortunately, but perhaps appropriately, the book is being promoted by A.B.S. via a 008 number named, 'The Greenline'.

"The A.B.S. is excusing errors because this first edition is only a 'prototype', The Acting Statistician wrote (Letters, 10/9). 'No doubt our next effort will be a considerable advance on the first.' It could scarcely be otherwise. "Yet, the A.B.S. is simultaneously promoting the book as 'over 350 pages of factual information, and potentially a textbook for tertiary institutions.

"The A.B.S. cannot have it both ways and wait until 1994 for the next edition. These next years are critically important action years now that Australia has signed the Rio Convention on climate change ... People rely on the A.B.S. for hard, objective data. "Regrettably, the continued reluctance of the A.B.S. to admit and correct greenhouse errors can only further diminish its reputation and usefulness."
Brian J. O'Brien, Floreat Park, W.A.