NO-WIN POLICY CONTINUES IN VIETNAM

"The bombing of North Vietnam had failed to reduce significantly the flow of men and materials to the South, the U.S. Defence Secretary, Mr. McNamara, has told Congress. In testimony released today, Mr. McNamara said there was no evidence that increased attacks would he more successful" - The Sun (Melbourne) February 21.

Mr. McNamara is not reported as having urged that the only way to make American bombing effective would be to use it to choke the Communists' main supply line through the port of Haiphong. Even in America there has been comparatively little publicity about the enormous flood of Soviet military and economic aid being sent to North Vietnam through Haiphong. The American Administration obviously wants as little publicity as possible about Soviet aid, otherwise an outraged American public opinion would resent the current American policy of "building bridges" to the Communist Empire through increasing economic aid.

Originally the Socialists and Communists strenuously denied that the war in Vietnam was anything more than an internal "civil war" But in order to offset Red China's claim that the Soviet Union and its satellites are not providing adequate assistance to North Vietnam, some of the Communist and pro-Communist papers have been making some revealing admissions. For example, the American pro-Communist weekly, National Guardian, in its issue of January 28, 1967, carried a full-page story from its Moscow correspondent, William J. Pomeroy, outlining the vast scope of the Soviet economic and military aid to North Vietnam. He writes:
"I have seen two Soviet documentary films, produced in 1966 and exhibited in theatres around the Soviet Union… One, "Struggle in Vietnam", is solely about the aid program and shows anti-aircraft rockets that are supplied, anti-aircraft artillery of Soviet make in action against American planes in North Vietnam, the tanks trucks, cranes, construction equipment, engines and machinery, medical aid, food, clothing, etc., being sent… Both films depict American atrocities calculated to arouse the strongest indignation among Soviet audiences, and both denounce the American aggression. The repeated slogans in the films (which appear regularly in the Soviet press add on posters) are: 'We are with you, Vietnam!' and 'Vietnam will win." The peoples of the Soviet Union are being left in no doubt that their Government is in conflict with the Americans. But the American people, and the Australians and New Zealanders, are kept in ignorance of all this.

Mr. Pomeroy continues his report from Moscow: "Vietnamese jet pilots have been trained for some time in the Soviet Union, to fly the Soviet planes provided. Their pictures, in training, can be seen everywhere in the large displays of news photographs that dot Soviet cities … All military aid to Vietnam is sent free of charge. Most of the economic aid is extended without provision for return compensation; the rest is covered by long-term, interest-free agreements."

Mr. Pomeroy also reports, "From December 13 to 20 a National Solidarity with the Heroic Vietnamese People was observed. The Soviet press reported that tens of millions of workers and others held meetings and demonstrations that week, and listed funds donated by workers in specific factories…Writers donated royalties from their books and musicians and actors turned over earnings from performances."

It is clear from this and similar reports that the Russian people have been conditioned to believe that they are fully involved in the Vietnam struggle, and that they are working for victory. But the American, Australia and New Zealand peoples are told that they are not fighting to win, only to stop the other side from winning. And they are not told that both Moscow and Peking are determined to continue the war until they can reach a suitable compromise agreement.

Dealing with the problems caused by the Sino-Soviet controversy, Mr. Pomeroy writes: "Soviet officials are reluctant to give publicly the details of problems in sending aid by way of China…They do, however, point out that 85 per cent, of Soviet aid goes by sea."
This means that 85 per cent of Soviet aid reaching North Vietnam flows through the port of Haiphong, which American airmen are forbidden to bomb, or to blockade, in case this brings America in conflict with the "mellowing" Soviet leaders.

From the very beginning of the American bombing of North Vietnam we have pointed out that this was being conducted in such a manner to mask the continuing no-win policy. Increasing numbers of American military leaders, Senators and Congressmen are starting to challenge this no-win policy. Is it not about time something was heard from Canberra?
Australians are also dying in Vietnam, probably killed by equipment supplied by the Soviet enemy.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY

"Houston, Tex., February 11 - The Houston Post reports that the Dow Chemical Co. has purchased $2. 3 million worth of magnesium - a metal vital in military aircraft production - from the Soviet Union in the past two months. Officials of Dow Chemical commented that shortages of the metal because of the war in Vietnam and the Administration's desire to build bridges to the Soviet Union prompted the decision to buy the Soviet magnesium." - The Review of the News (U.S.A.), February 22.

America is being bled in a war in Vietnam, which she does not win because she will not confront the Soviet enemy. The Soviet strategists then exploit the very shortages they have helped to produce. No wonder they are contemptuous of the West's will to survive in the type of international revolutionary war they are directing.

WILSON'S MAN LIES ABOUT RHODESIA

"Present-day Rhodesia was likened to Nazi Germany by Britain's Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, in Melbourne yesterday. He said that the knock on the door at midnight by security police was a familiar sound in Rhodesia today. In Rhodesia he had had clear evidence that nearly 1000 African trade unionists were detained in camps.
Mr. Bowden was speaking at a State luncheon at Parliament House to welcome him to Melbourne.
Mr. Bowden said that in Rhodesia the machinery of the police State was already in operation. The knock on the door was a familiar sound in the African townships and, as in Nazi Germany, it was followed by indefinite detention without trial." - The Sun, (Melbourne) February 21.

Mr. Bowden's attack on Rhodesia provides further evidence of the despicable tactics the British Socialists are prepared to use in their desperate attempts to destroy Rhodesia. We trust that Rhodesian leaders take careful note of what The Australian of February 21 described as a bitter attack on the Rhodesian Government, because it has been reported from Rhodesia that members of the Rhodesian Government felt that Mr. Bowden was the most "reasonable" of the British representatives to visit Salisbury.
Mr. Bowden's Melbourne attack shows conclusively that he is even prepared to lie to further his campaign against Rhodesia.

Not one of the large numbers of critical observers to visit Rhodesia has ever produced any evidence about nearly 1000 African trade unionists being detained in camps. The total number of those held in restricted areas is only a few hundred. These are the thugs who have supported the terrorist politics of Nkomo and Sithole. It is a blatant lie Africans are being harassed by the Rhodesian security policy. The Africans are contented under the law and order provided by the Smith Government; this has saved them from the terrorist tactics of the African "nationalists", whose main weapon was not a knock on the door at midnight but a petrol bomb through the window.

Mr. Bowden claimed in Melbourne that, "Britain had never advocated immediate majority rule." Mr. Bowden would be well advised to look at what his leader, Mr. Wilson, wrote to an African nationalist, before he was first elected as British Prime Minister. Mr. Wilson specifically said that his party would not support independence before majority rule. And following the HMS Tiger talks, Mr. Wilson said that there could be no recognition of Rhodesian independence before majority rule.
Needless to say Mr. Bowden also claimed that economic sanctions were undermining the Smith Government. 'Time was running out for the Smith regime with Rhodesian exports falling from $429 million in the year before illegal independence to an estimated $150 million for the coming year." (vide The Australian report) Mr. Bowden's figures are complete conjecture, and are about as reliable as his other "facts".

The Rhodesian Government has never claimed that sanctions have not had some effect. In fact it has always presented a sober, realistic picture. Such a picture was presented by the Rhodesian Minister for Finance, the Hon. J. J. Wrathall, in the Rhodesian Parliament on February 9.
On the question of external trade, Mr. Wrathall said:
"For obvious reasons, I do not propose to say anything about our foreign trade in 1966 beyond remarking that the Government's import control, exchange control and other policies achieved their objective of enabling Rhodesia to live within her means."

Even if Mr. Bowden's claim were correct that Rhodesian exports had fallen by nearly two thirds during 1966, this means little if the Rhodesians reduced their imports proportionately and turned to manufacturing much of what they previously imported. Mr. Wrathall says that this has been done, and visitors to Rhodesia can see the evidence of this for themselves.

Mr. Wrathall concluded his statement by saying "Our chosen path will not be an easy one. Sacrifice and hard work will be the order of the day. I believe, however, that sanctions will not only fail in their purpose but that they will ultimately prove to be a blessing in disguise, and help us to achieve economic as well as political independence."

All the evidence shows that, providing the Rhodesians remain united and sustain their morale, mandatory sanctions will be a failure. Then will come the danger point, with the revolutionaries at the UN calling for military force. Incidents will be attempted to set the stage for what would have to be a major military action against the whole of South Africa. Blatant lies would also be necessary.
A senior British Cabinet Minister has provided frightening evidence of the type of lying likely to be used in an attempt to condition the peoples of the Free World to condone force against anti-Communist Rhodesia.

ON TARGET BULLETIN
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : Policy and Administration

In our discussion notes issued on February 10 we saw that all policies are based upon philosophies, and that there can be no harmony between policies stemming from diametrically opposed philosophies. We now come to the difference between policy and administration.

There is widespread confusion about this difference, because of much loose talk about democratic administration. Policy may be defined as results, which the individual desires. In a genuine democracy all policies would be indicated by individuals making free choices. We can therefore speak of democratic policy making. But the methods by which policies are obtained come under the heading of administration.

Individual consumers can, through their "money votes" democratically decide what type of shoes they provide. But it is obviously ridiculous to suggest that they could democratically run the shoe factories and the retail organisations distributing shoes.

The most efficient form of administration must be based upon the principle of someone making decisions and instructing others to carry them out. Administration may be consultative, but in the last analysis some single person must decide. Every successful enterprise is based on this principle.

So long as there is effective democratic control of policy, the individual can obtain that policy most efficiently by administration being under the control of individuals who make personal decisions. Individuals may decide (control policy) whether or not to play cricket, but once they have made their decision the manner in which the game is played is decided largely by one man - the captain.