COMMUNIST ADVANCE IN INDIA

"In the south Indian state of Kerala, the Communists and their allies in a Communist-dominated Left front…dealt a bad blow to Congress in voting for the 133 - member Kerala State Assembly." - The Herald (Melbourne), February 22.

From 1956 until two years ago Kerala had a Communist-led Cabinet. But the New Delhi Government dismissed the Communists when they went too far too fast with their educational programme. Many people breathed a sigh of relief. But the Communists, as always, did not let up, and they have now returned to power in an Indian State, which is of great strategic importance. The Communists shrewdly backed a united Leftist front and obtained an overwhelming absolute majority.
It is significant that both Communist factions, pro-Moscow and pro-Peking, sank their differences in order to fight the election campaign.

The massive vote against the Congress Party in the Indian elections indicates a growing instability in this vital sub-continent. Communist strategy is first to fragment India before attempting to take over piece by piece. A firm base has now been established in Kerala.

BRITAIN AND THE COMMON MARKET

"Britain would enter the European Common Market only if essential British and Commonwealth interests were safeguarded, the British Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bowden) said today." - The Advertiser (Adelaide) February 24.

When the Fabian Socialist leaders of the British Government, Mr. Wilson and Mr. Brown, recently journeyed around the European Capitals of the countries which make up the Common Market pleading Britain's case for entry many seasoned observers said "I told you so". Many Conservative voters failed to support their party at the last elections because the Conservatives were committed to a policy of joining the E.C.M. The Labour Party on the other hand had taken a stand against joining, and by so doing had gained the support of many who would not have normally supported the Socialists.
"Better the Socialists who we can tip out in five years than to be committed to the Rome Treaty was the attitude adopted by many."
However it should be clear that the British voter was really caught between two fires and had no genuine choice.

What Mr. Bowden did not say was that the British Labour Party had given up its support of International Socialism and that entry to the Common Market is an essential step in that direction.

We prefer the comment of another visiting Britisher to Australia, Sir William Steward, who is more widely known for his culinary arts, especially with curry recipes, but who served for ten years as a Member of the House of Commons.
Speaking on the Common Market Sir William said, "I loathe the Common Market. If I were an Australian I'd be extremely grieved by the actions of the British Government lately. The only Common Market we should have had was one, which included Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Africa. To hell with unsettled Europe; The Australian February 23.

The fact is that the Rome Treaty is the operative instrument by which Britain's constitutional sovereignty would be destroyed. Trade is a minor consideration, and even so as Sir William points out, the Commonwealth offers a bigger market than Europe.

REALISM ON VOTING FROM COUNTRY LEADER

"Australian primary producers did not support the principle of 'one man, one vote' in Australian electoral distribution, the Federal president of the Australian Primary Producers Union, Mr. J. P. Heffernan, said today." The Herald (Melbourne) February 22.

Mr. Heffernan based his contention upon the fact that the primary producer in Australia is responsible for the greater parts of Australia's export earnings. Mr. Whitlam shortly after his election to the leadership of the Labour Party called upon the Government to legislate for a scheme of redistribution based upon each member of parliament representing nearly as possible the same number of voters. This would mean the decimation of the country people as a political force. It would also lead to an earlier realisation of the socialists dream, the control by the state of all means of production and distribution.
However it is clear that beside the realism of this statement by Mr. Heffernan there is also some confusion regarding the best way of protecting the man on the land from other socialist measures.

The Australian Primary Producers Union for whom Mr. Heffernan spoke has for a long time sought the amalgamation of other primary producers organisations into one big organisation. Such moves lead to easier control of the farmer by bureaucratic groups. What Mr. Heffernan deplores in the "one man, one vote" is the dilution of the influence of the farmer and his ability to have his voice heard in parliament. But the same principle is being pursued in his drive to amalgamate all primary producers into one organisation.

MR. HOLT AND THE SENATE

"In modern times, most senators - in my experience this has been invariably been the practice of those from the Labour Party have followed, in the Senate, the policies adopted by the majority in their party room discussions." The Age (Melbourne) February 24.

Mr. Holt was speaking in favour of breaking the ratio of representation between the House of Representatives and the Senate. His argument is that the House of Representatives in this modern day and age has too much work and therefore needs more representatives. But once policy has been decided by the superior wisdom of the House of Representatives, legislation is generally passed automatically in the Senate as agreed to in the party room.

There is only one reason why the House of Representatives is overworked. It has accrued to itself power, which was never intended and is now legislating on everything from the proverbial provision of pins to elephants. All directed and controlled by the Socialist bureaucracy. The fact that the Senate is directly controlled from the party room destroys the balance of power necessary to maintain responsible government. Adding more members to the House of Representatives is tackling the problem from the wrong end. Those representatives now there will be heard less frequently. The impact of the individual member will be weakened and the bureaucracy will grow stronger.

RACIAL PROBLEMS WORSEN IN ENGLAND

"Three hundred women workers at a factory who walked off their jobs in protest against the hiring of a 15 year old Negro girl were being asked today to return… In a separate strike, 150 men downed tools at a Wolverhampton factory after an Indian engineer reported for work." The Australian, February 23.

The tragedy being enacted in England has resulted from a departure from the most elementary rules governing human relationships and social stability. That grown men and intellectual giants (as they are presented to us) accept situations which in their practical implications can result in nothing but disaster is a measure of the fantastic Alice in Wonderland world we live in today. It is not of course one 15 year old Negro girl or one Indian engineer which has brought out on strike England's working men and working women - those whom are always lauded by the one worlders, etc, as the grist for the new classless society. Rather this is a revolt by an indigenous people against the attempt to tear up and destroy the roots of their society.
That many people are going to be hurt in the process, or that a civilization could be destroyed by unleashing in man his baser instincts as he desperately seeks to protect his own, does not seem to worry those in control.

"The English will never make a revolution by themselves, it will have to be imported for them," was the remark of that prophet whose ideas now dominate the thinking of British leaders - Karl Marx.

DOES MR. DENTS WARNER WANT ANOTHER KOREA IN VIETNAM?

"For a time, Russian tankers lay offshore and unloaded oil supplied into barges which could be, and were, attacked by American aircraft. To overcome this problem the Russians brought in much smaller tankers from Vladivostok. This has eliminated the need for transshipment into vulnerable lighters. It also enables the freighters to dock in inner waters of Haiphong, which are "off limits to American bombers and fighters. (Our emphasis) The Herald. (Melbourne) February 27.

This is one side of Mr. Warner's comment. The other side comes four paragraphs later after he comments that the above helps the Russians to "compensate for the damage done by bombing to North Vietnam oil supplies, and also how they are forced to mobilise their S.A.M. ground-to-air missiles making them harder to destroy. Mr. Warner goes on with this pearl of wisdom, which must gladden the hearts of Mr. Kosigyn and Ho Chi Minh.
"All this, of course, is an argument in favor of a further step-out in bombing activities in North Vietnam, especially against Haiphong. It is also a damning criticism of the original decision to bomb North Vietnam instead of concentrating on the war in the South. (emphasis added by Mr. Warner".

It is obvious that Mr. Warner wants a war of "containment" similar to Korea, a result that can only be of advantage to the Communists, for the only other alternative is to defeat them completely. We reported in our issue of November 25, 1966 the statement of Mr. Hubert Opperman, a responsible member of the Australian Cabinet at that time whose views no doubt reflected those of his confreres. Mr. Opperman said "the U.S. could drive to Hanoi or cut all the Viet Cong communications 'tomorrow' if it wished. However, the U.S. was being influenced by world pressures against escalation of the war.

Though "world pressures" are being supplied by the likes of Mr. Warner whose press so often depicts him as being anti-communist. With Mr. Opperman we believe the military war could be won 'tomorrow' if the military commanders were allowed to fight to win. It is readily recognised that the military commanders are the captives of the politicians, and it is to the politicians that the likes of Mr. Warner addresses himself.

We would like to ask the question. If the war could be won 'tomorrow' who is responsible for the deaths of those Australian and American soldiers being lost while the war is needlessly being dragged on?
Perhaps that question could best be answered by saying that we all have a responsibility to shift our politicians so that the military war can be won 'tomorrow'.