THE REAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHINA FACTOR

by Eric D. Butler
Long before the current interest in Asia emerged, C.H. Douglas predicted that the centre of gravity of world politics would move from Europe to Asia. Douglas was able to make this prediction because of his understanding of how a finance economic system linked to expanding financial debt, made the progressive centralisation of power appear "inevitable", this fostering the will-to-power in the human drama.

In his famous B.B.C. broadcast on "The Causes of War", the text of which is published in The Monopoly of Credit, Douglas predicted that another great war was certain while the industrialist nations of the world persisted with the view that their internal economies could only be sustained by aggressive exporting. In the preface to the third edition of The Monopoly of Credit, published after the Second World War, Douglas wrote, "to anyone who will take the trouble to analyse the course of events ... it must be obvious that the Monopoly of Credit, which means the effective domination of human activity, is being pursued with relentless persistence. On the outcome of this policy ... depends the earthly destiny of the human race."

At the time (June, 1950) Douglas made this comment, the Communist grip on China, one of the results of the U.S.A's. betrayal of the Chinese Nationalist forces led by Chiang Kaishek, was being consolidated. The global expansion of Communism and the Chinese Communists' intervention in the Korean War resulted in American public opinion hardening against Communist China. International forces were, however, persistently operating to end Communist China's "isolation" from the global scene, with Dr. Henry Kissinger dramatically "breaking the ice" when he persuaded President Richard Nixon that the time had come to bring Communist China into "the international community".

It was argued that Communist China would be less of a danger to world peace if welcomed by the West. Prominent among those promoting this view were prominent members of the international banking world. Having established the Chase Manhattan Bank in Communist China, David Rockefeller returned to the U.S.A. with a remarkable eulogy of Communist China. According to Rockefeller the Chinese Communists were the greatest "reformers" ever to appear on the world stage.

Big business representatives, lured by a report of a huge export market, which awaited development, started to move in. Reports started to appear of Zionist Israel's growing links with China. It was therefore not surprising when Zionist leader Isi Leibler started to make visits to China. Which brings us to the current visit to Communist China by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. Most Australians have probably forgotten that John Howard is following the same path taken by Labor leaders before him. First there was a typical Whitlam spectacular. But it was Bob Hawke who, following his election of 1983, decided that Communist China should be the object of his first overseas visit. Hawke painted glowing pictures of how the Australian economy would benefit from closer economic links with China.

Those Liberals, who believe that John Howard is pioneering new economic policies with his proposal of joint economic ventures between Chinese and Australian organisations, should carefully study what Hawke proposed. Hawke proposed, among other ventures, a joint Australia-Chinese steel manufacturing organisation. All this was in keeping with the philosophy of internationalising the global economy. John Howard has merely taken over where Bob Hawke and Keating left off.
In spite of his brave words about defending Australian culture, John Howard is an internationalist who continues to make it clear that he believes, like his predecessors, that Australia has an Asian Destiny. While in Singapore he was claiming that Australian development depended upon Asian investments, particularly from those coming through Singapore.

During his China tour, John Howard has been accompanied by those representatives of Big Business, which are locked, into the "international economy". Arch internationalist Rupert Murdoch is naturally most enthusiastic about John Howard's mission. But he was also enthusiastic about the Bob Hawke mission, and the blatant Asianisation programme advanced by Paul Keating.

While there are a number of international groups running in the international will-to-power game, they all see Communist China as a major factor in the shape of things to come. But what is to come? Judged by conventional finance economic rules, China is a tremendous success story. John Howard says that he is overwhelmed by the rate of economic growth currently running at 10 percent.

But a number of problems are already starting to emerge. Inflation is, as Douglas predicted, rising in the wake of massive capital development. With most of the development being financed by external investors, the debt structure is starting to create problems. There are massive environmental problems. But the major question is, how is China to service its massive international debts by exporting into a world where all developed nations are attempting to export?

China's Asian neighbours are conscious of the threat of Chinese expansion, backed by one of the biggest military machines in the world. Right throughout Asia there are large numbers of Chinese, generally dominating trade and commerce, whom the power men in China naturally regard as a type of advance force in any global expansion programme. If John Howard and his advisers had even the slightest understanding of economic realities and geo-politics, they would be asking how can Australia's long term survival as a European nation, rooted in the traditional European culture, be guaranteed if they link Australia's future with what will certainly develop in Communist China.

Eventually the issue of Taiwan is going to reach a crisis point. The Chinese of Taiwan will have to decide whether they are going to be absorbed progressively into mainland China by economic pressures, or whether they are going to resist Peking militarily. Where will Australia stand? Taking John Howard's words at their face value, he has already opted for support for the internationalist "One China" policy. Rather than upset his Chinese hosts before his current visit, he blatantly snubbed the government of Taiwan by declining to meet with one of their representatives.

The commentators stress that one of John Howard's most difficult tasks is to persuade the Chinese that his defence arrangements with the U.S.A. are not designed to support the U.S.A. in what is seen as a programme of anti-Chinese encirclement by the American "imperialists". The Chinese view is dominated by clear evidence of growing economic conflict as the Americans try to solve their internal problems by exporting into China.

The whole world drama is dominated by attempts to operate a finance economic system, which is badly flawed. Australia's only chance of long-term survival is to break free of a deadly dogma, stressing that it wants to solve its internal problems without trying, in essence, to export them to other nations. At the same time as indicating its peaceful intentions, Australia should be building up a defence programme as quickly as possible.

Clearly John Howard will not take this course, in an endeavour to ensure Australia's future. The only solution is to remove, as quickly as possible, from office those who think as he does. Australians must ensure that they are not embroiled in the problems associated with China.

THE HANSON ONE NATION PARTY

by David Thompson
Press announcements that the Independent Member for Ipswich, Pauline Hanson, intends to launch her own political party comes as a surprise to those who have closely observed her progress and political fortunes. When addressing an Australia First rally in Albury late in February, Hanson is reported to have acknowledged that her constituents in Oxley had elected her as an Independent, and that she would remain so. Others inquiring about her intentions have been assured that another political party was not contemplated.

The major political parties have restructured the electoral system in such a way that, particularly in the case of the Senate, it is extremely difficult for Independents and small groups to gain Parliamentary presence. Pauline Hanson has demonstrated in a rather spectacular way that it is possible to break this stranglehold on political power. Her whole career in Parliament has been based on a rejection of the political status quo, which has marginalised the majority, and forced "bi-partisan" policies like those on immigration and multiculturalism upon us. But an analysis of Hanson's success reveals that she has provided the best service to Australians when she has acted as a type of catalyst, and united Australians against that which threatens their best interests.

It is possible to reach across all party divisions, social, economic, religious and even racial divisions, to unite Australians against something, which threatens them. A political party is not necessary to achieve this and, in fact a political party begins to divide loyalties, and destroy that unity.

Many serious questions need to be asked about the formation of the Hanson One Nation party. The first question is who has advised Ms. Hanson to take this step? When Pauline Hanson threw down her challenge to the big parties in her maiden speech, they threw everything possible back at her to silence her. She was ridiculed, abused, patronised and insulted. She was threatened so that she hid her family for weeks. The press as a generalisation were vicious in their condemnation.

It would not be true to say that Hanson never wavered in her determination to hold her ground. She would not have been human if she did not. A few individuals, like Graeme Campbell, urged her to "hang in there", and the fact that she was literally swamped in public support sustained her. Having withstood all that her opponents could hurl at her, could it be that Hanson might be undermined by her "friends"?

Those who have urged her to form her own party, capitalise on the public support she generated, and assault the Australian Parliaments with "Hanson" members, might mean well, but their advice is poor to the point of being dangerous, and may eventually undo all that she has so far achieved. Who will administer a Hanson party? What role will the Hanson Support Groups play? And most important of all, what policy will a Hanson party pursue? How will that policy be agreed upon? With the utmost charity, it must be admitted that having attracted a large cross-section of loyal, decent Australians, Pauline Hanson has also attracted some strange and unsettling characters.

Pauline Hanson makes no pretence of intellectual status. In fact, she makes a virtue of being an ordinary, hard-working person. The formation of a political party will certainly require hard work. But it will also require extraordinary leadership qualities to hold such a strange mixture of people together. It will require negotiating and diplomacy skills, the patience of Job, and many years of experience in the murky world of party politics. There is no denying that Pauline Hanson has the capacity for hard work, but does she have the other skills?

It is much easier to unite people in the things they are against than to unite people in what they are for. The formation of a political party must do the latter. The attempt immediately begins to undermine the unity produced by the former. The more policy issues that are embraced, the further and deeper the divisions are. It requires immense skill and experience to surmount such difficulties.

In our view, the best chance of forming a political party directed to achieving the kind of national unity Pauline Hanson envisages, is that of Graeme Campbell's Australia First. Graeme Campbell has demonstrated that he can work hard, attract committed and experienced people, offer the necessary leadership, and produce a limited number of key policy objectives to unite others. Most of all, Campbell has had nearly 20 years experience with the machinations of party politics in the toughest school available: the Australian Labor Party.

Political parties are a menace, and a blight on the political landscape. At the very best, they corrupt the process of representative government. At the very worst, they will destroy it completely. By their very nature, most political parties are essentially destructive because the seduction of political power makes parties an end in themselves rather than a means to achieving constructive results. Australia First has sought to present a strictly limited-objective policy goal, and has focused on achieving those policy goals, rather than the goal of achieving power.

In the formation of a Pauline Hanson party, our long experience observing party politics suggests the beginning of a disaster for Pauline Hanson. As yet, her objectives seem confusing. Her own motivation may well be quite beyond reproach, but what of those around her? At best she has been badly advised. By whom? What motivates them? We have nothing but the greatest reservations, and a sense of foreboding about the formation of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party.

FARMER ON HOWARD & IMMIGRATION

CHICKENS COMING HOME TO ROOST IN VICTORIA

When Premier Jeff Kennett, Liberal Premier of Victoria, started to reveal his thinking (or that of his "advisers") concerning a new-look State of Victoria, including forced amalgamations of Municipal Councils, we predicted that a type of cultural revolution was threatened. The much publicised casino-led economic recovery, which has made the Premier's wealthy friends even wealthier and fostered enormous social problems, is but only one feature of what is taking place.

Nilumbik is one of the new amalgamated Councils on the outskirts of suburban Melbourne, and recently held the first meeting of the newly elected Council. The major weekly newspaper, which serves the area, The Diamond Valley News, carried the following front page headline in its issue of March 26th: "$50,000 MAYOR". Ratepayers generally have been shocked to learn that their new councillors will be paid salaries totaling almost $100,000 a year, this including $50,000 for the newly elected Shire President, Robert Marshall.
A member of the Labor Party, Marshall resigned from the Party just prior to the Council elections. In the spirit of modern socialism, Marshall has defended the huge increase in salaries and allowances, which have been permitted by the Kennett Government. Marshall is provided with a car and mobile phone. He is reported as saying that he will be continuing with his architectural business.

From right across Victoria come reports of newly elected Councillors voting the maximum salaries and "perks," admitted by the Kennett Government. The old spirit of service has been killed in Jeff Kennett's Victoria. A new breed of Councillor has emerged. Not surprisingly the Labor Party is moving in to take advantage of what Kennett has made possible. Fewer Councillors with bigger areas means less effective representation and increased power for a Municipal Government bureaucracy staffed by those who see themselves as "managers".

Along with what have been termed "obscene" increases in allowances for Councillors comes the news that the newly elected Councils may be forced to further cut services after the discovery of a $400 million superannuation "black hole". A superannuation report reveals that the sacking of thousands of Council workers has left the scheme with a massive unfunded liability. With the Kennett Government insisting that it will not permit Municipal Rates to be increased, it appears that there will be a further reduction in basic services.

With all major planning decisions firmly in the hands of the Planning Minister's Department, Victorian Local Government has been reduced to a mere policing authority for decisions by the State Government. Other Australian States tempted to follow the Victorian example of compulsory amalgamation should take careful note of what is happening under the Kennett Government.

CONFRONTING AFRICA

The Australian Aboriginal industry is driven predominantly by non-Aboriginal people, or those of part-Aboriginal heritage. It continually frustrates Australians to observe part-Aboriginal people almost idolising their Aboriginal heritage, culture and traditions, while making little or no reference to their non-Aboriginal heritage, particularly if that happens to be European. And yet few involved in the "Aboriginal industry" actually condescend to live traditional Aboriginal lifestyles, but prefer the comforts that the European influence has made available.

The American Negro "industry" appears to be of a similar mind-set to that of the "Aboriginal industry". The African heritage is emphasised, and in some cases regarded as vastly superior to that of the European. In some universities, the "Afro-centric" view of history is taught, in which the achievements of the African Negro are emphasised, and sometimes outrageously exaggerated. In California, an attempt has been made to establish Negro ghetto-slang as a new "language" called "Ebonics".

But the United States Negro population has recently been shaken by one of their number, Keith Richburg, producing a book called "Out of America, A Black Man Confronts Africa". Richburg, a journalist for the Washington Post, spent three years in Africa, and his experiences apparently demolished the prevalent liberal romance with the nobility of tribalism, which he previously shared. His "thank God for slavery" comment, suggesting that slavery had rescued him and many like him from the charnel-house that is Africa, has enraged many in America, particularly blacks.
"I am tired of lying," Richburg writes. "I am tired of all the ignorance and hypocrisy and the double standards. Talk about my black roots and my kinship with my African brothers, and I'll throw it back in your face - and then I'll rub your nose in the images of the rotting flesh..."

He writes defiantly that he is grateful that his ancestors escaped the brutalism of Africa. "And why should I feel anything more? Because my skin is black? Because some ancestor of mine, four centuries ago, was wrenched from this place and sent to America (probably by another black chieftain) and because now look like those others whose ancestors were left behind? But I have been here, and l have seen - and quite frankly, I want no part of it."
Richburg observed the hundreds of thousands of corpses floating down the river on the border between Rwanda and Tanzania, the product of the massacres in Rwanda in the conflict between the Tutsi and the Hutu tribal groups.

He rejects the suggestion, often advanced by black Americans, that the problems in Africa are largely the result of white colonisation. While it is true that many mistakes were made by the Europeans, the period of white colonisation of Africa was a relatively peaceful period for the African peoples. As Douglas Reed observed in his "The Siege of Southern Africa" (Macmillans, 1974) the colonial period even then was becoming, in retrospect, the Black Man's Golden Age, because then "there was law". Reed was convinced that the numbers of blacks killed by other black people in the area north of the Zambesi in the 10 years preceding the publication of that book was greater than the total casualty list of the Second World War.

The great American Negro experiment to establish a free and democratic black state in Africa in Liberia has not attracted a flood of black Americans to emigrate to Africa. In fact, Liberia today is in just as much economic and racial difficulty as almost any other black African state.

"Out of America" appears to be another of those rare, unforeseen historical hiccups in which the naked truth is told, irrespective of prevailing political and social orthodoxies. The hardcover edition of Richburg's book is not yet available in Australia, as far as we know. When the paperback edition is published, we expect to be able to obtain stocks as a service to our subscribers.
Please Note: At this stage, we have no stocks of the Richburg book.

REALISM FROM BILL HAYDEN

Those who deny that an individual can never change his thinking or beliefs deny the spiritual nature of man. Writing in his autobiography, former Governor General Bill Hayden, reveals a basic honesty by stressing that he no longer believes what he once did. He demonstrates a humility to laugh at absurdities concerning economics, which he once accepted.
Once again Bill Hayden demonstrates that he is not afraid to be politically incorrect. On the major question of Aboriginal land rights, he has criticised the High Court over its Wik decision and branded native title legislation as complex, confusing and leaving the way open for extortion by Aboriginal groups. He has warned of major economic damage if the problems are not fixed.

Hayden outlines his criticism in an eight-page letter, dated March 21st, and sent to Queensland Premier Borbidge, Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition leader Kim Beazley. Hayden's letter was written after the collapse of negotiations to resolve the dispute over the Century Zinc mineral project. Mr. Hayden was acting as a negotiator for the Queensland Government. It is generally believed that Hayden's criticism of the High Court will greatly increase the pressure on the Howard Government to legislate to override the Court's decision.