BRITAIN'S DISASTROUS FOREIGN POLICIES : THE MIDDLE EAST E.C.M. & RHODESIA

Eric D. Butler reports from London:
"Whilst it is too early as yet to claim that the defeat of Nasser has been a major set-back to Soviet Russia's Middle East policy, it is certain that British prestige is not being improved by any of the major foreign policies of the British Socialist Government. Early in the crisis, precipitated by Nasser's demand that U.N. forces be withdrawn from the Middle East, and his attempted closing of the Gulf of Akaba, Prime Minister Wilson did appear to be advocating a policy of realism. He suggested immediate Anglo-American action, in association with other maritime powers, outside the U.N. to call Nasser's bluff. But Lester Pearson of Canada, running true to form, made it clear to Mr. Wilson during his visit to Canada that his Government opposed any action outside the U.N. and President Lyndon Johnson virtually said the same thing.

Having persistently adopted a policy of weakening Britain's military strength, the Wilson Government obviously can no longer pursue an independent foreign policy.
The failure of London and Washington to act decisively led to Israel taking the initiative with results which have worsened British and American prestige throughout the whole Arab world.

In spite of the obvious failure of the U.N. the British Foreign Secretary said in the British House of Commons on June 7 that "When this Middle Eastern situation has become just one more event in history, the creating and building of United Nations authority will still be an outstanding aim of any intelligent, rational Government anywhere in the world."

Press reports state that Mr. Brown was cheered in the House of Commons when he said, "I despise this tendency to giggle when the question of the United Nations authority is mentioned."

The pathetic attitude of the British and American Governments towards the U. N. leaves the Communists in the formidable position of being able to operate both inside and outside the U.N. as suits their conspiratorial purposes. Paul's conclusions.

E.C.M.

In spite of window-dressing by the pro-Common Marketers it is clear that President de Gaulle is determined that the British shall submit completely to his demands before he will permit the British to join the Common Market. It is a depressing spectacle to see a British Prime Minister apparently prepared to continue to destroy British sovereignty while in the process suffering one humiliation after another.
However, it is clear to me that there is still great health in the British people.

That Great Britain patriot Mr. John Paul, has recently observed:
"Clearly, despite the great measure of agreement between the political parties, the one-sided 'educational' activities of the pro-European group between 1963 and 1966 (with the rich backing of Warburg, Beddlington-Behrens and many others of the merchant banking and allied fraternity) and the bias of the national daily papers, the basic instinct of the British public is against Europe.
Probably the time has never been more ripe than now for a new initiative in British politics.
Disillusioned by socialism, unattracted by Health or his toryism, and repelled by the shallowness and irrelevance of Thorpe liberation, more people are distrustful of the political leaders and their policies than ever before."

After a week in Britain and my fifth visit in four years, meeting a wide cross-section of people, I would agree with John Paul's conclusions.

RHODESIA

"The Wilson Government continues to suffer another foreign policy defeat on the Rhodesian question. Even Mr. Duncan Sandys, one of the Conservative Party's architects of the British retreat in Africa, is attempting to jump on the bandwagon of pro-Rhodesian support in Britain.

The Rhodesians have won the battle of economic sanctions, as witnessed by some figures given by Mr. John Bruce-Gardyre, Conservative M.P. for South Angus, who points out that the British Government's boycott of Rhodesia is opening up a rich market for Japan and many other European countries.
He gives the following percentage increases in exports to Rhodesia:
France, 222 per cent; Germany and Japan, both 62 per-cent; Europe Free Trade Area countries, 46 per-cent.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyre points out that 'We have abandoned an export trade of £36 million a year in favour of an embargo policy which will damage us far more than Rhodesia.'

It appears that the British Socialists do not care how much damage they do to the British people in pursuit of their disastrous foreign policies. It remains to be seen how long the British people are going to suffer the defeats being inflicted on them by their own Government."

AN APOLOGY

In the May 19th issue of On Target we must apologise for a very unfortunate error when dealing with the Aboriginal question on Page 3. We referred to "The One People of Australia League (OPAL)" as possibly promoting political agitation; we should however, have referred to the "Federal and Queensland Councils for the Advancement of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders" as these bodies are under very heavy communist influence.
In actual fact, OPAL does not allow communists to join their organisation and is trying very hard to combat communist influence amongst the Aborigines.

Further to our apology and in justice to OPAL it should be pointed our that Opal came into existence because of the genuine concern of those people who could see how the Communists were exploiting the Aboriginal question for political motives. It was noticeable that during the recent referendum great publicity was given to Mr. Gordon Bryant M.P. for the Labour seat of Wills, in Victoria. The Whole trend of the publicity was to infer that the referendum was a great victory for Mr. Bryant in his capacity as President of the Council for the Advancement of Aboriginals. Mr. Bryant is a strong supporter of Dr. Jim Cairns and supports vigorously those causes, which give comfort to the Communists.

Recent issues of Hansard are instructive. There we find Mr. Bryant accusing the Government of using H.M.A.S. Hobart to shell Vietnam civilians. Another member commented that Mr. Bryant never seemed to be concerned about the number of South Vietnamese government officials and village leaders who were murdered by the Viet Cong.

Recently also our Government has accepted the Communist "come-on" strategy of depicting Yugoslavia as being "different" and therefore safe enough to establish an Australian Embassy there. With the wedge inserted Mr. Bryant was quick to take advantage of the situation and in question time ask when the Government would see fit to establish similar embassies in Czechoslovakia and Poland.

Friendly relations with the peoples of each country concerned is one thing but in each case we would be dealing with their gaolers, who will only interpret our willingness to establish official contact with them as weakness.

Book of the Week

IT'S VERY SIMPLE
by Alan Stang

Sub Titled : The True Story of Civil Rights

BRITISH AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY AND F111

"If the swing-wing project is dropped, there will be no alternative to buying more F111's unless there is a serious change in the Government's strategic defence plans." The Australian June 9.

The weakening of Britain's ability to defend herself goes on apace. We pointed out at the time in On Target April 9, 1965, that the decision of the then British Government to partially destroy her advanced aircraft industry and rely for her defence requirement on the U.S.A. and a joint venture with France, was lunacy of a high order. The enormous price increases of the American F111 and the imminent breakdown of the Anglo-French project brings this criminal negligence to the point of treason.

Commenting on the anticipated withdrawal of the French from the swing-wing strike plane project, Air Commodore E.M. Donaldson is quoted in The Australian June 9.
"The leader of one British trade union said that a Government member had already described the project as a dead duck, and that the Government was simply going through the motions which would end in France's withdrawal for money reasons. This would release the British Government from the responsibility of dropping the project, which would intensely anger the R.A.F."
"If the swing-wing project is dropped, there will be no alternative to buying more F111's unless there is a serious change in the Government's strategic defence plans."

The folly of this unhappy mess is more evident when doubts are cast upon the reliability of the F111 to fulfill expectations. Plus the strongly held belief amongst conservatives in America that the Secretary of Defence, R. S. McNamara is pursuing a deliberate policy of phased disarmament. The position facing the West could well be the lack of a genuine alternative bomber should the F111 prove a failure.

THE FUTURE OF THE MIDDLE EAST

"Since Suez, in 1956, British dependence on 'Arab' sources of oil has greatly increased - not decreased as the Prime Minister professes to believe. Consumption of oil products has more than doubled in this decade, and a whole, industry - the railways - is now dependent on petroleum instead of coal," Political Intelligence Weekly, London June

P. I.W. points out that British oil companies at present contribute an estimated £100 million in sterling to the balance of payments. Alternative sources of supply would only be available from the dollar area. P.I.W. goes on to ask how was it that the "Russian-Egypt axis succeeded in obtaining virtual unanimity amongst the diverse members of the Arab world, including formerly trusted friends of Britain such as Hussein of Jordan, and the Sheikhs of Bahrein and Kuwait?

Firstly, the incomparable trickery and deceit of Nasser, embodying all the worst characteristics of Machievelli and Hitler; secondly, the failure of the U.S.A., through reliance upon U.N.O. to take the place of which Britain has been vacating in the Middle East; and thirdly, the British policy of further withdrawal from Aden and elsewhere.
Why, indeed, should any friend of Britain continue upon the limb of friendship for this country when the British Government is itself sawing through that limb?

Certain lessons for the future are now clearer than ever. Britian's entire future depends on them being learnt and taken to heart quickly.

1. The policy of withdrawal East of Suez, starting from Aden, has to be halted. The visit next week of Australian P.M. Harold Holt, should be used for re-thinking British defence policy throughout Asia.

(2) Pressure should be put upon the USA to withdraw its recognition of the Nasser-puppet regime in the Yemen, and Egypt be arraigned before the world for use of poison gas there.

(3) Revised borders, for Israel should be delineated and limited on the 1948 agreement, with a major effort to solve neglected injustices of the million displaced Palestinian Arabs.

(4) The importance of the Simonstown agreement with South Africa needs to be re-affirmed, and supported by a reversal of the socialist government's hostility to that country.

(5) The development of the petroleum resources, so recently discovered in the North Sea.