BEHIND THE MOUNTING TRADE WAR

by Eric D. Butler
In a prophetic BBC address on "The Causes of War", and published in the 1937 edition of The Monopoly of Credit, C.H. Douglas, the founder of the movement known as Social Credit, demonstrated that military war was the end result of trade wars, and that trade wars were the result of modern industrialised nations attempting to solve a domestic shortage of purchasing power by "fighting" for foreign markets. Orthodox finance economics is based upon the view that domestic prosperity is based upon "capturing" foreign markets, thus obtaining what is called a "favourable balance of trade".

Commonsense indicates that it is impossible for every exporting nation to have a "favourable balance of trade"; that there must be nations with an unfavourable balance. This is the current complaint of the U.S.A.: that Japan has been exporting an increasing amount of production to the U.S.A. while failing to import equivalent production from the U.S.A. The imbalance is greatest in the field of motorcars.

U.S.A. trade representative Mr. Mickey Kantor has produced a "hit list" of Japanese goods for a proposed punitive import duty. The American policy makers are attempting to force the Japanese into accepting a bigger volume of American production. The Japanese have pointed out that the American policy would result in the bankrupting of a number of Japanese car producing industries, with a further increase in Japanese unemployment, this adding to growing social tensions.

In today's much publicised "internationalised" economy, there is no doubt that a major depression in Japan would have serious international implications. The last time that the U.S.A. imposed a severe economic boycott on Japan it led to Pearl Harbour and Japan's entry into the Second World War. It is highly probable that in today's world of nuclear weapons, policy makers everywhere want to avoid, if possible, military war which could endanger banking and other power groups, wherever they live. The alternative offered is the creation of Common Markets, Free Trade Blocs. Both Washington and Tokyo have indicated that they are seeking Australian support.

Prime Minister Keating has already criticised the American approach, primarily for the threat of unilateral action, arguing, "we ought to be concentrating on more open and freer trade generally". Keating is a prominent advocate of an Asian and Pacific trading bloc. Any short term benefit to Australian primary producers, resulting from the Japanese responding to American import restrictions by switching from American farm products to Australian products, would almost certainly be offset by destabilised commodity prices resulting from a major America Japan trade conflict.

As has been previously pointed out in On Target, the whole world is moving towards deepening crisis conditions. It is elementary that if there are 20 major industrialised nations, all suffering from a domestic shortage of purchasing power to buy what has been produced, reducing the 20 down to 10 by forcing them into trading blocs, will not increase the total purchasing power by one dollar. If the much-publicised World State with a world economy could be established, this would still not overcome the basic problem. But in the attempt to achieve this objective, millions of small producers, primary and secondary, would be destroyed with horrendous social dislocation. The signs of this dislocation can be seen everywhere.

In his BBC address on "The Causes of War", Douglas said that by putting its own house in order, by modifying financial policy to make it possible for the British to enjoy the benefits of their production system without threatening other nations with an aggressive export policy, they would lead the world away from threatened military action and set an example to the rest of the world. But as a Member of the European Economic Community, Britain has surrendered much of its sovereignty to Brussels - interestingly enough, the capital of a Multicultural Nation now in deep turmoil.

The state of the world provides a clear message to Australia: break with internationalism, correct its own internal problems, thus strengthening the economy and thus encouraging other nations to do likewise.

BOB CARR'S ANSWER TO SYDNEY'S SPRAWL

by David Thompson
Newly elected A.L.P. Premier Bob Carr of N.S.W., has been to the bush and as we previously noted, reached the conclusion that the immigration programme was not serving us well, since the rural areas were becoming depopulated, and migrants congregated in Sydney. As a result, notes Carr, the city is choking on its own waste. Carr comments that all cities have their optimum sizes, and that Sydney has long ago passed it. So Carr turned his attention to the immigration problem.

Mr. Carr is asking the Commonwealth to re-direct migrants to other cities and "regional" centres of N.S.W., rather than to Sydney. But we identify a new note in the Carr philosophy: he is not asking for population decentralisation, but regionalisation. Senator Bolkus has already proposed that skilled migrants be given preference if they agree to go to work in the new 'trans-border' economic regions. So far, 19 Regional Economic Development Organisations have been established, with Commonwealth finance, and more are planned.

It appears that the A.L.P. has now found a way to bend the immigration programme to the service of "regionalism" with the co-operation of the States. But does Mr. Carr understand. Mr. Keating's "big picture"? If Mr. Carr was prepared to deal with the problem, instead of tinkering with the symptoms, he might use his relationship with the Commonwealth to demand a halt to immigration - even if only temporarily. He could also insist on a change in financial policy, enabling those Australians forced out of rural areas to return. He could begin by insisting on a banking policy that would keep farmers on their properties, and small businesses in rural areas.

THE ARROGANT EVANS ON FOREIGN TREATIES

As we expected, the High Court's decision on the "Teoh case", handed down last month, is beginning to produce uncomfortable political consequences. In this case, a Malaysian facing deportation, following conviction on serious drug charges, claims a "legitimate expectation" that the Government first considers the effects of his deportation on his children: Why? Because in 1990 the Commonwealth ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Although the treaty was ratified by the Government, Parliament was never consulted, and no legislation was ever passed to give effect to the 'treaty'. But the High Court found that although no laws had been made to enforce the treaty, the Government could not ignore its obligations under the terms of the treaty. As Sir Anthony Mason said in an extraordinary ABC Four Corners interview early in April, the High Court is obliged to act on issues where it was clear that the Government would not, so the Court found in Teoh's favour!

This unexpected result has certainly turned up the heat in the treaty issue. However, Senator Gareth Evans, speaking at a Constitutional Centenary Foundation Conference in Canberra a few weeks ago, still says there is no need for new treaties to be submitted to Parliament before they are signed. Evans said he was very reluctant to submit the treaty approval process to "the vagaries of the parliamentary system". This means that the Parliament should not be consulted because the Senate might block new treaties, instead of merely rubber-stamping them, as Evans required!

Mr. Alexander Downer, addressing the same Conference, noted that one day in November last year, the Government tabled 36 treaties already ratified, and gave notice of another 50 being negotiated. There was only half an hour's debate about the 86 treaties, and each speaker limited to five minutes.

The incredibly arrogant Evans said that instead of consulting Parliament on new treaties, the Government's informal consultations were enough to ensure that the treaty making power was used responsibly. For a man with a good working knowledge of constitutional law, Evans certainly understands the doctrine of the separation of powers under the Westminster system. In particular, he understands that the role of the Senate is as a House of review is vital to the separation of powers.

But Evans shares the Fabian view that to be "efficient", powers should be centralised. This issue, now becoming widely understood, and generating widespread concern, is a potential election winner for the Opposition. But will Howard grasp the nettle, and find a way to not only scrutinise all treaties properly, but review those already adopted? Nothing less will do.

THE SHAKY BUDGET STRATEGY

In order to produce a budget which "projects" a surplus income over expenditure of $1 billion, Mr. Willis had to pawn the family silver in the form of the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, etc. But his optimistic surplus is also conditional on a number of other factors, mainly outside the Government's control. These factors include the interest rates, the value of the dollar, and the cost of servicing the growing national debt.

Such things are now dominated by the multi-trillion-dollar financial "markets", in which millions of dollars are traded every minute, from one currency to another. So a few pimply youths in charge of computer terminals in London, Tokyo or New York could completely sink the Keating/ Willis budget strategy on any single day between now and the next election.

Last week "the market" dropped "24 points" on one day in New York, and shaved a cent off the value of the Australian dollar. Already speculation about interest rates rising again is in full flow. Has the 1995/96 Budget been thrown out of whack already? No one knows, and the Prime Minister and his minders are gambling on no one finding out until the tell tale figures begin to clarify the fiscal sleight-of-hand - probably next year, and almost certainly after the election.

The truth is that for all the huffing and puffing about the budget, it is no more a "budget" than a matter of wishful thinking about what conditions Mr. Keating would like to produce in order to win an election. As any farmer knows, an annual "budget" is required to keep bank managers off their backs, but it is really only a statement of general intentions, and as such hardly worth the computer paper on which it is printed.

BRIEF COMMENTS

Glenn Milne, Chief Political Correspondent for the 7 TV network, writing in The Australian, reveals that a week before Federal budget night Keating's Minister for Finance, Mr. Kim Beazley, approached Opposition leader Howard to discover how the Opposition would be disposed towards a Budget proposal that foreign holding in the National Airline, QANTAS, be increased. It was essential that the proposal, along with the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, not be defeated in the Senate.
Howard gave Beazley "the nod". If he hadn't, Labor's Budget strategy, producing the surprising surplus of $718 million, would have collapsed. And there are still wishful thinkers who believe there is some basic difference between the Labor Government and the Opposition!
John Howard still refuses to present any policies for the coming Federal elections. Only political illiterates do not understand that the election campaign is already under way. All the evidence indicates that Keating is recovering any lost political ground, and that he is relying upon John Howard to win the election for him.

* * * * * * * * *

Mr. David Connolly, who lost his Liberal Party pre-selection in safe Liberal electorate Bradfield to "new boy" Dr. Brendan Nelson, suspects now that he might have given too much loyalty to the Party which dumped him. He is reported as saying that he was "bloodied but unbowed", warning his opponents against underestimating his capacity to fight back. David Connolly could make a start to fight back by contesting the next Federal elections as an Independent Liberal. He would be astounded by the support he would get.

* * * * * * * * *

Australia's best-known historian, Geoffrey Blainey, has spoken out on what he terms "reverse racism". Professor Blainey was addressing Mentone Grammar last Friday when he said that the MABO decision and subsequent Native Title Act had divided Australia. 'The present Native Title Act managed to blend racism and hypocrisy," he said. He attacked the reasoning before the MABO decision as flawed, with the settlers of the 18th and 19th centuries being wrongly accused of wrong doing...."I think if we talk about history we should learn our history and not be great homes to ignorance such as the High Court of Australia, to its shame".
The press generally ignored the Blainey address.

NO CARS FOR (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) COMMISSIONERS

STRANGE, STRANGE, STRANGE

A FEW MORE FACTS ON VIETNAM'S HISTORY

from The Age (Melbourne), May 10th
"By now, the dust caused by the furore over the Vietnam War probably has settled. Throughout the debate, quite a few columnists, as well as correspondents, have quoted the Geneva Accord and the abandoned 1956 election to unite Vietnam as a 'just cause' for the 'spontaneous' insurgence in South Vietnam in the early 60s.
"I just want to add to the historical facts regarding this matter:
1). The Government of South Vietnam at the time (the Bao Dai Government) strongly opposed the Geneva Accord, and never signed it.
2). It is true that if the election had been held in 1956, the communists would have won, but not because they were widely supported by the Vietnamese people. When they were in power from 1945 to 1954, the communists had their forces to destroy all other nationalist parties, especially in the North. Therefore, under their own iron grip, people in the north would have no other choice but to vote for them in an election.

"In 1954, after Vietnam was partitioned, one million North Vietnamese fled south, while only 100,000 southerners went north. That discrepancy was due to the fact that many communist cadres were ordered to stay in the south to manipulate the coming election, and later to wage a guerrilla war against the South Vietnamese Government. 'That was the reason why the Government of Ngo Dinr Diem refused to hold the election, as it was not possible to have a free and fair election under those circumstances.
'The insurgence in South Vietnam was planned and prepared by the communists even before the Geneva Accord. In the early 60s, communist heavyweights from the north, like Le Duan and Le Due Tho, were already positioned in South Vietnam to take command of the guerrilla war."
(AiMinh Cao-Xuan, Cabramatta, N.S.W.)

NO POINT IN SYMBOLISM

from The Australian, May 22nd
"Mary Kalantzis and Bill Cope (The Australian, 9/5) want to make the racial hatred bill politically symbolic. That approach will not get us far - the symbolism of free speech is as strong as a symbolic attempt to protect ethnic communities from racists. 'The test of the legislation has to be its likely actual effects. If it is likely to offer significant new benefits to ethnic communities without seriously compromising free expression, then we should proceed with it. If not, the legislation should be abandoned.
"Keeping in mind that incitement to violence is already illegal, it is not clear that the racial hatred bill substantially increases protections available to ethnic communities. To this has to be added the risk that the legislation, by promoting a backlash, could make things worse. Isi Liebler and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (The Australian, 16/3) admitted as much by attributing a rise in anti-Semitic violence to neo-Nazis angered at the racial vilification laws.
"Nor is there any guarantee that racial hatred laws will choke off the publicity craved by racist, political groups. To the contrary, taking them to courts and tribunals hands coverage to them. 'There are lessons in this from the N.S.W. Government's attempt to counter vilification of homosexuals, which has now at least twice resulted in anti-gay material originally published in small circulation publications being reprinted in mass circulation newspapers.
At this stage the racial hatred bill's supporters have not shown that its benefits exceed its risks. The legislation should be shelved until they can do so."
(Andrew Norton, Centre for Independent Studies, St. Leonards, N.S.W.)