THE REALITIES OF DARKEST AFRICA

by Eric D. Butler
Not even the mass media, which campaigned for years for an end to "apartheid" in South Africa, and the "liberation" of the whole of Africa from its European "colonial oppressors", can suppress the truth about what is happening throughout most of sub-tropical Africa. Red Cross and other international relief agencies are urgently calling for an increased flow of aid. Blood-chilling reports come out of Rwanda and other central African countries as the mass slaughter of the victims of tribal warfare continues.

The early Christian missionaries in Africa, men like David Livingstone, described the "charnel house" conditions they had to contend with. The availability of modern automatic weapons enables mass killing on a much bigger scale than in the days of Livingstone. It is impossible to estimate accurately how many millions have died since the famous "winds of change" speech by British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in Capetown 40 years ago.

A number of factors were responsible for the European retreat from Africa. There was Moscow's long term anti-British campaign strategy with its stress on "anti-colonialism", a strategy which relied upon "student intellectuals" educated at British and other European Universities; there was the disease of "liberalism" which spread like a cancer through Western societies; and there was the imperialism of International Finance which, in its campaign to create a "New World Order", fostered and exploited both Liberalism and Communism.

The strategic importance of Africa, with its vast natural resources was not overlooked by the globalists. The recent visit to Africa by President Clinton, the current hero of the globalists, was not unrelated to the grand global strategy. Needless to say, Clinton was full of praise for the new Africa, particularly South Africa, which was the final and most important African target.

Having betrayed a Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), which was for a decade a major stumbling block to the globalists' African strategy, South Africa is being destroyed by the forces of anarchy which are a feature of the new Africa. Nelson Mandela was the chosen front man for the globalists. Zulu leader Chief Buthelezi who offered a moderate form of apartheid (separate development in the form of a Swiss-type federation) was ruthlessly elbowed aside by the globalists.

Waiting in the wings to replace Mandela after he has played his part are the type of Communists, now known as social democrats, who are collaborating with the representatives of International Finance to create the new Russia. But, as in the new Russia, a major feature of the New South Africa is escalating crime and social integration.

The activities of the much publicised Truth and Reconciliation Commission, in which that strange Christian Archbishop Desmond Tutu has played a prominent role, has tended to distract attention from the soaring crime rate and the breakdown of law and order. Some of the published figures provide a glimpse of realities.

In Gauteng Province, which includes Johannesburg, over 200 policemen, mostly black, have been murdered since 1996. The rate of police killings continues to escalate. During the first nine months of 1997 more than 17,000 civilians, most of these blacks, have suffered violent deaths. Not surprisingly, those who can leave South Africa are continuing to do so in growing numbers. Whites who continue to live in South African towns or cities, protect themselves behind high walls and by sophisticated electronic devices. Hi-jacking of motorcars is a common daily occurrence. The police openly admit that law and order no longer prevails in many areas.

Since African National Congress members took over the Johannesburg Metropolitan Council, large sums of money have disappeared. The Council's response to these developments is a massive increase in rates. Long established business organisations continue to leave. Property values have collapsed.

The starry-eyed idealists confidently predicted that with the end to apartheid, there would be a flood of foreign investments into South Africa with the South African Government able to fulfill the lavish promises it made before the elections. Millions remain unemployed. As happened in the USA, where the whites have moved out of those cities dominated by blacks, South African whites are increasingly moving to the Western Cape Province, which has the only South African local government controlled by whites.

Nelson Mandela has been forced by reality to face the truth that unless his government can curb South Africa's crime rate the new South Africa will sink to the same low level of chaos and corruption affecting the rest of Africa. Mandela has promised that every possible action will be taken to prevent the killing of White South African farmers, who provided the food necessary to feed not only South African, but other people throughout Africa.

Pressured by the same kind of people responsible for an African disaster which threatens to become worse, to weaken their immigration policies and to embark on even more multicultural madness, Australians should carefully heed the lessons of South Africa. Their slogan for survival should be "One nation, one people, on flag and one constitution". A nationalism, which respects the nationalism of other peoples, while proudly upholding its own, provides the only hope for the survival of traditional Australia.

MAI SHELVED FOR SIX MONTHS

by David Thompson
News reports on Wednesday of last week indicate that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has postponed negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment for six months, hoping that "fundamental differences" among the group can be resolved. It appears that the international protests against the MIA in Canada and Europe have forced negotiators to reconsider the timetable of the treaty.

According to sparse press reports, the French in particular have objected to the threat to French culture by a United States-dominated international cultural onslaught. Sensitive to the decline in the use of French internationally, the French had insisted that the treaty must exclude all cultural issues in order to protect their artistic, cultural and audiovisual industries, which could be swamped by the influence of Hollywood. (The Australian, 30/4/98).

This touches sensitive chords, including the question of Jewish influence, since the overwhelming 'cultural' dominance of Hollywood is Jewish. The question of cultural protection is a serious issue in Australia, too, since the High Court ruling in the New Zealand television product case last week. In this case the Court ruled that international free-trade agreements can override measures designed to protect local cultural productions. Richard Letts, chairman of the Music Council of Australia points out that this affects not only television, but film, music and any other artistic production. He called for an urgent statement from major political parties in Australia about exemptions for Australian cultural productions, although apparently unaware that the draft of the MAI insists that such exemptions ('reservations') must be rolled back over time.

The French Cultural Minister, Catherine Trautman, said "The principle of MAI is offensive because it regards works of art merely as investments, not as creations. . . . The MAI would end each country's policy of arts subsidies, and sabotage any European cultural policy." (Le Mondel The Guardian, 1 March 1998).

The Australian's European correspondent quotes the OECD Secretary General, Donald Johnson, as downplaying the differences that prevented an agreement in time for the OECD annual ministerial meeting. "I am sure these small parochial issues will be able to be worked out". But the disagreements are serious, and the suggestion that they are 'parochial' is to minimise the importance of the sovereignty of the nation-state, which is the major basis of all conflict on the MAI. It is unlikely that this will be resolved by October, when negotiations are due to resume.

Since the main objective of the MAI is to override national sovereignty in regard to foreign investment, the entire basis of the treaty is one of major objection. The Australian negotiators are reported to have sought exemptions from the MAI provisions for the Foreign Investment Review Board's screening processes, foreign ownership limits on Telstra privatisations, Social services, performance requirements, monopolies and the interests of aborigines. That is, they want protection for Australian investors overseas, but do not want to give too much away when it comes to protecting foreign investment in Australia. This is clearly unrealistic, as the intention of the MAI is to permit unrestricted foreign investment.

The postponement of negotiations relieves those opposed to the treaty of having to give expression to objections by the end of May, which was the original timetable for accepting the treaty. But the MAI has not 'gone away'. It is certain to reappear in another form. The multinationals have a vested interest in its prevailing over governments.

HAZARDOUS PRIVATISATION PROCESS

The privatisation of the South Australian State power utility, ETSA, has become an embarrassing disaster for the State Premier and Ministers involved. It is the classic case of the "new class elites" setting the political agenda without reference to the wishes of the electorate. When it became clear that there was serious electoral opposition to selling off ETSA, Premier Olsen and his deputy, Graham Ingerson simply went ahead in secret. Their problem now is that it has been revealed that while the secret negotiations continued, they were strenuously insisting that there were no plans to sell off ETSA.

The chairman of ETSA, Mr. Mike Janes, now admits that he had a staff member working on the privatisation from his home. At the public inquiry in Adelaide he was asked why he had done this. Because "the last thing I wanted to do was start a situation. . . . when people would go running around with the view that ETSA was going to be privatised", he answered.

The Premier, Mr. Olsen, has been forced to admit that he attended secret briefings in Sydney on the privatisation, organised by Shroder's merchant bank, who were paid $50,000 for their services. But rather than admitting that he lied at the time of the election campaign, Olsen and his office have attempted to "manage" the issue to control the extent of political damage. But the problem is quite clear. They lied to the South Australian voters, who apparently believed them. The "last thing" they wanted to do was be honest with the electorate!

In Victoria, a privatisation expert from the Victorian Treasury is highly critical of the privatisation of prisons, criticising the Port Phillip institution for not being sufficiently regulated. "You need a regulatory body to have real powers to find out if its well run," he said. Which was the reason that things like prisons, electricity, water, and communication infrastructure was always run by the State!

In every case, State governments have parliamentary committees, which held regular inquiries into many areas of public administration to ensure they are "well run". And when they were not "well run", the public inquiry would lead to the relevant politician accepting personal responsibility for correcting the problem. But under the new religion of economic rationalism, accountability is of lesser importance than "efficiency".

In the case of the Victorian prison, the investigation into its efficiency is being run by the head of a government department for correctional institutions. That is, the bureaucrats are investigating the bureaucrats, rather than the politicians investigating the bureaucrats. On this principle, the privatisation of Australian public infrastructure will become an extremely expensive mistake.

HAS THE MAI GONE AWAY?

Although negotiations on this deadly international treaty have been 'postponed', experience with bureaucrats indicates that this heralds a change of strategy, rather than a change of heart. We recall other campaigns where the bureaucrats and their captive politicians were soundly beaten by public opinion, only to prevail with a change of strategy.

For example, the opposition to the Australia Card was so savage that politicians and bureaucrats alike had to beat a hasty retreat. But today most of the provisions of the Australia Card have been achieved, bit-by-bit, without calling it an Australia Card. Cross-linked social security, tax and banking databases alone provide the bureaucrats with huge amounts of highly sensitive and private information. The MIA is suffering a temporary retreat, but Lenin's "one step back and two steps forward" will see the it reappear in another form.

We have been impressed by the standard of some of the submissions to the Inquiry into the MAI, and congratulate supporters for such efforts. We remind actionists that Dr. Rod Kemp, the Australian delegate at the OECD in Paris said the federal Government could still see benefits in "an appropriately worded" MAI. Senator Kemp welcomes further debate on the MAI, and in our view, he should not be disappointed. This is an issue on which the vast majority of Australians are still completely in the dark. The educational work must proceed.

FROM THE PRESS

SAVAGE ON PRIVATISATION
"Recently I wrote to the Federal Member for Mallee, John Forrest, and urged him to reconsider supporting the government's decision to sell the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. My concern is based on the belief that this proposal is not in the interests of Victorians - particularly in rural areas. The cost of providing telecommunication services in country areas is significant, and ultimately rural customers will end up paying far more than city residents.
"The National and Liberal Parties have previously sold out rural Victorian electricity consumers with privatisation. The rural cross-subsidies are already disappearing, and in rural areas we will pay more for power in the near future after deregulation. Any politician who says we will pay the same or less for electricity than our city counterparts is a liar. Apart from reducing debt, the Telstra sell-off is to fund pork-barreling for future elections at the expense of rural customers.
"Supporting the Telstra privatisation is another sell-out by the National and Liberal Parties, and consistent with the lack of meaningful assistance to the citrus industry. Mr. Forrest has accused me of having a 'luddite view' on this issue and he suggests that we must 'think progressively'. This suggestion is typical of the arrogance and condescending attitude displayed by the Coalition when its decisions are questioned.
Russell Savage MLA, Member for Mildura, Sunraysia Daily, 25/4/98.

"The Nationals are going to contest the seat of Mildura at the next election. One would think they would be better off trying to retain the seats they hold, rather than contesting new ones, as they've lost so much support in the bush. Why anyone would vote for them now is beyond me.
"They no longer represent us as they should. They have become the 'Rubber Stamp' Party endorsing anything and everything the Liberals want. The Gun Buy-Back, Wik, Aboriginal Land Claims proved they no longer consider the voters who put them there.
"Independent Russell Savage is serving us well, a lot better than some 'yes' men from the Nationals. More Independents and less party hacks will give us better representation."
Ian Tune, Mildura, Sunraysia Daily, 25/4/98.

"After marching in a brass band at the Anzac Day ceremony in Sydney, where I saw nothing but Australian flags being waved, I ask Mr. Harold Scruby to show the Australian public why our flag needs replacing. Our flag makes all Australians feel proud.
"With regards to the Australian athletes who might be 'uncomfortable' with the Australian flag being displayed on the Australian uniform for future Olympics. If they feel that our national symbol is inferior, these athletes may not need funding to train for the Olympics.
"I have seen many Olympic champions shed a tear while watching the Australian flag being raised. Their pride was palpable. As long as we know our national symbols, who cares what others think."
David Astin, Bankstown, Sydney Morning Herald, 28/4/98.

Too risky...
"The manner in which the dispute on the wharves has been handled leaves me in no doubt that the proposal adopted by the Constitutional Convention, whereby an Australian head of State is appointed by a two-thirds majority of Parliament and the Prime Minister holds the power to dismiss, must never be allowed to succeed. "A staunch republican, I would rather my destiny and the destiny of my children be left in the care of the British crown* rather than be delivered via the Constitution into the hands of politicians in any way, shape or form, no matter what 'safeguards' are in place."
HJ. Emmerson, Mooloolaba, Qld; The Australian, 1/5/98.

*While the author makes a very good point, he is, of course, incorrect about the "British crown" protecting his children's destiny. It is the Australian crown, embedded in the Australian Constitution that protects his destiny.