THE NIXON BLOCKADE - PRELUDE TO THE FINAL SELL-OUT?

Many newspaper commentators have compared President Nixon's dramatic decision to blockade Haiphong and North Vietnamese ports with the confrontation of Castro's Cuba by the late President Kennedy. Many are hailing it as evidence of strength long overdue, but is it?

On both occasions the ostensible reason for the blockade was to stop Soviet arms aiding a communist satellite. History now reveals that far from suffering defeat at Cuba the Communists achieved real gains in their overall strategy for world dominion. The same can be said on South-East Asia if the Nixon proposals are accepted.

It should be apparent that stopping the flow of arms to Vietnam Communists at this late stage is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, and therefore Mr. Nixon's strategy has other objectives. In the Cuba "victory" the salient gain to the Communists was the agreement made by President Kennedy with Khruschev, subsequently honoured by Presidents Johnson and Nixon, that American troops would never invade Cuba. President Nixon is now making the same sort of guarantee over S.E. Asia. He has stated unequivocally that he will withdraw all U.S. military forces from all Indo-China within four months of an agreement to accept a cease-fire and the return of American prisoners of war.

As every political strategist knows, it is the side that wins the last military battle which defeats the enemy, and the Nixon offer is tantamount to telling the Communists the whole of Indo-China will become their preserve in exchange for the conditions stated. The Communists will readily agree as such promises mean nothing, and anyway "peoples' wars" have nothing to do with cease-fire agreements, they are "spontaneous" expressions of democratic rights.
If the Korean War and the P.O.W. exchange is any measuring card of this issue the relatives of P.O.W.'s in Vietnam can take no comfort from what may eventuate.

Mr. Nixon will go to Moscow on the 22nd of this month and formalise further steps towards his policies of co-existence with the Communists. He will go there having sold the American people the story once again that he is a tough line operator when it comes to dealing with the Communists but all the time he is selling them short.

For a survey of the real Nixon, the international socialist, hiding behind the carefully contrived portrait of a conservative, readers should obtain a copy of the May issue of Intelligence Survey, 50 cents post free.

QUEENSLAND AND NORTHERN N.S.W. READERS - TWO NOTABLE EVENTS

IN RHODESIA TODAY

In the following report from Salisbury, Mr. Eric Butler reports on the current situation in Rhodesia.

May 9 - I viewed last night the much-publicised TV and radio press conference with Prime Minister Ian Smith. There had been keen speculation on whether the Prime Minister knew what the Pearce Commission had reported to the British Government. While Mr. Smith claimed that as yet he had not received a copy of the Pearce report, I am inclined to agree with a member of the press panel who observed that the Rhodesian Government does, however, know the general finding of the British Commission. Mr. Smith's statements, warning of more difficult days ahead, strongly suggest that the Pearce report is a "qualified" or "explained" No to the proposed agreement terms. I cannot see the Heath Government attempting to obtain Parliamentary approval for the agreement terms in the face of a report, which states that the majority of Rhodesians had expressed opposition to the settlement terms.

In my interview with Mr. Enoch Powell in the United Kingdom, he expressed the view that the Common Market policy could founder on some issue not directly associated with the Common Market. Just as Mr. Heath made it clear that his Irish policy was subordinated to the major Common Market policy, so has the Rhodesian issue been subordinated to the Common Market exercise.

It is no secret that some of the wavering votes Edward Heath desperately required for the Common Market were obtained from those Conservatives who have pressed for a British-Rhodesian settlement. Prime Minister Smith's performance last night was not the best I have seen, but it was sufficiently good to take most of the points. This assessment may be unpalatable to my anti-Smith friends but my view has been endorsed by a member of the press panel with whom I had a personal discussion this morning. I have also had a man-in-the-street survey conducted and the biggest percentage said that they were impressed and satisfied. The reaction in the rural communities may not be the same, as there has been strong criticism of the Rhodesian Government amongst the farmers.

However, unless something unforeseen happens and unless the anti-Government forces can project a much more responsible image than they are at present, I would agree with the member of the press panel who says that Mr. Smith is safe for at least another twelve months. This does not mean that the Government does not have some able critics on its policies, but I cannot see the obvious concern amongst a section of the electorate finding effective expression in the immediate future.

There is the age-old fascination with party politics, the announcement being made this morning of yet another "right-wing" party. None of the new parties has produced a man with real leadership qualities. And some of the supporters of these parties recall once again that old saying, "God protect us from some of our friends." Irrespective of what the apologists for the Smith Government say, there is no doubt that it has made serious retreats on policy in its attempts to reach an agreement with the British.

Mr. Smith made one point crystal clear last night; The ridiculous Pearce exercise of "testing" public opinion in Rhodesia was proposed by the British Government in the face of opposition by the Rhodesian Government, and that the British Government "intimated" to the Rhodesian Government that they preferred the Rhodesians to make no effort whatever to attempt to explain the settlement terms. The fact that the Rhodesian Government agreed to an exercise, which they clearly feared would lead to the disastrous rioting resulting from the activities of African agitators, indicates how desperate they were in search of a settlement.

As I have warned on many occasions, the Achilles heel of the Rhodesian Government is the same Achilles heel of all Western Governments today; a' blind spot', or perhaps a deep-seated fear, to modify finance-economic policies which drive all nations in the very direction the International Marxists wish them to move. If the Smith Government, or any other Rhodesian Government, were prepared to tackle this question, adequate economic activity could be readily financed within Rhodesia and necessary imports be obtained through exports which could be made available at prices which could easily under-cut higher-cost nations. There would be no need whatever, short of being defeated militarily, for Rhodesia to make any concessions to any outside nations concerning its internal policies.

But in its desperate effort to operate under "sound" finance economic policies, the Rhodesian Government has been prepared to make concessions, some of which are of the most far reaching significance. The most objective and comprehensive analysis of the proposed concessions has been made by Dr. Walter Henderson, the Federal President of the Australia-Rhodesian Associations, and a man with an international standing as a constitutional authority. Dr. Henderson made a most exhaustive examination of the Rhodesian situation last year, with the full-hearted co-operation of the Rhodesian Government. His reports were models of clarity and strongly favoured Rhodesian policies. I find that there is a strong reluctance amongst Government supporters to attempt to answer the serious criticism offered by Dr. Henderson. I find it significant that even the Rhodesian daily press, which has been consistently anti-Rhodesian Front, has refused to publish Dr. Henderson's criticisms.

One of the major points made by Dr. Henderson is that the Rhodesian Government, a completely sovereign government, as ruled by the Rhodesian Judiciary, has permitted an alien Government, the British Government, to have printed and distributed in Rhodesia, a booklet that purports to explain the British-Rhodesian settlement terms. The booklet contains a major untruth when it states that Rhodesians are not at present receiving justice under the 1969 Constitution. On page l it is stated that "If you (all Rhodesians) accept the new proposals, the total number of African Members chosen in various ways should in time equal and then outnumber the European Members. The African Members could then choose the Government. They could make new laws and change old ones. They would control the Government..."

There is debate concerning how long it would take for the one-man-one-vote principle to result in an African Government. But there is no argument that this is what the proposed settlement means. And it is this prospect, which worries large numbers of European Rhodesians, who are familiar with what has happened to all African-dominated Governments to their North.

Explaining the settlement terms in the House of Commons on November 15, Sir Alec Douglas-Hume specifically stated that the current position of authority of the African chiefs is to be eroded: "They will all be Africans and not chiefs." This policy is clearly in flat contradiction with the stated principles of the Rhodesian Front Government led by Mr. Ian Smith.

Irrespective of what happens now about the settlement terms, I foresee a new period of tension inside Rhodesia. The external pressures are going to be increased by those international forces working for the collapse of stability and order in Southern Africa. The Rhodesians are basically faced with the same stark problem facing all Western nations. Are they prepared to progressively adopt policies of expediency in an endeavour to ease the mounting pressures of evil finance-economic policies?
History teaches that those who compromise with evil ultimately pay a dreadful price.

WORLD CONTROL OF MONEY AND THE E.E.C.

The President of France M. Pomidou is reported in The Age May 13th saying the determination of a stable monetary system would depend upon an enlarged 10-nation European Common Market. He said, the world's progress "towards a stable monetary system with valid rules for all will depend mainly on the enlarged community, on its stand and determination to defend this."
M. Pompidou is a Rothchild banker.

Dr. Carroll Quigley reveals in his book Tragedy and Hope how such banking institutions have emasculated politicians to pursue the concept of a system of world control based upon the power of finance. M. Pompidou along with fellow banker nominee Edward Heath, (Brown Shipley & Co.) are merely the highly paid pawns in the treacherous game of selling out their respective nation's heritage. Where do our Australian politicians stand in this same game?

AUSTRALIA PARTY DISCUSSES THE LEAGUE

"One of the main questions we will discuss is the danger posed to Democracy by the League of Rights and its front organisations, the Electors' Associations." - Dubbo Liberal May 5.

Thus spoke Mr. Fergus McPherson the National Co-coordinator for the Australia Party outlining plans for weekend meeting to finalise policy and strategy for the coming elections. Political parties have a vested interest in the acquiring of power by the few to benefit the power groups behind them. The Australia Party was born out of the world wide anti-Vietnam campaign. As a party it has never given any indication its domestic policies will offer any alternative to the motivations behind its affinity with the forces of world monopoly, of which backing the Communists in Vietnam is but a part. As with such groups it has never lacked publicity, access to the mass media or adequate funds. As such we would expect it to see in the League, the only political group in Australia pressing for genuine alternatives to political-finance-economic monopoly, an enemy to be attacked.

ON TARGET BULLETIN

The Rule of Law