PRESIDENT NIXON'S "PEACE WITH HONOUR"

"Saigon, Monday -The Viet Cong stalled peacekeeping moves today as heavy fighting continued in South Vietnam. Its delegation twice refused to present its credentials at meetings of the four-party Military Commission, which controls troop withdrawals… The refusal comes at a crucial time with an already shattered ceasefire hanging in the balance." - Bruce Wilson from Saigon in The Sun, Melbourne, January 30th.

The pattern of events in Vietnam has been predictable to those who have made it their business to understand how the Communist mind works. Early in the Vietnam War, the top North Vietnamese theoretician, Truong Chinh in his textbook, The Resistance Will Win, correctly predicted that the longer the military conflict went on in Vietnam, the greater the psychological damage inside the U.S.A. and other non-Communist societies. Vietnam has proved one of the major issues, which have been exploited, by subversives and revolutionaries in their unrelenting efforts to destroy the foundations of traditional societies. President Nixon has gained neither peace nor honour in Vietnam.

During the protracted negotiations which led to the scheduled cease-fire for last Sunday - this in fact the signal for an outbreak of some of the most bitter fighting of the war - the Communists' main ace was the American prisoners of war. Dr. Henry Kissinger had to make some major concessions before the Communists would agree to a cease-fire, which they see as merely a change of emphasis in a continuing struggle. If American military leaders had been permitted to fight the war against North Vietnam as they wished, they would have ended the conflict in a comparatively short time. But as we have previously demonstrated, such a policy was contrary to that of the power groups in the U.S. A. who had the closest economic links with the Soviet Union, the major supplier of sophisticated weaponry to the North Vietnamese Communists.

The same groups are strongly backing the policy of massive credits for both the Soviet Union and Red China. And now there is to be "reconstruction" in Vietnam, with North Vietnam also offered extensive credits. There does not seem to be much honour in all this. The real story about Vietnam has not yet been written. If it ever is, it might explain the truth about the much -publicised American bombing of North Vietnam, a heavily populated country.

During the whole of the Second World War, less than 80,000 tons of bombs fell on Great Britain. Before the last American bombing attacks on North Vietnam at Christmas, the United States had dropped 50 times as many bombs in Indo-China. A UPI despatch broadcast on the ABC news on January 8th, said that the Americans had dropped 400,000 tons in the previous nine months. This works out at about 3 tons to the square mile.

In spite of all the hysterical campaigning against the "mass slaughter" by the Americans, North Vietnamese casualties from the bombing were comparative small, as revealed even by Hanoi. This is rather different from what happened when, for example, Dresden was bombed during the Second World War and tens of thousands were killed in this one raid. Which raises the question: Where did all those American bombs go?

The complete fine print is probably not yet available concerning the agreement reached between Dr. Kissinger and the Hanoi Communists. But it has been revealed the Communists have been left with large troop formations inside South Vietnam. And the stalling tactics they are already adopting clearly indicate that once the American forces leave South Vietnam, they will intensify the struggle. At the same time pressure will be increased in other parts of South-East Asia, such as Thailand, already concerned with an upsurge of Communist-backed guerrilla activity in the Northeast.

Prime Minister Whitlam refuses to concede that there is any continuing Communist threat. His latest contribution to the art of wishful thinking is "regional co-operation". Mr. Whitlam told the political science summer school in Canberra on January 27th that "Both Australia and Japan are moving swiftly into an area of better understanding with the largest power, China." There is no evidence to suggest that any of the current non-Communist leaders have any better understanding of Communism than their predecessors had twenty years ago.
"Peace" in Vietnam is but another advance down the road of deepening world crisis.

REALISTIC AUSTRALIA DAY ADDRESS

"We could surely do without the embarrassment of communist sympathisers or Left-wing politicians emerging from a state of hitherto discreet reticence in Australia and presenting themselves and us in abject posture in Hanoi. We do not want to find that our only friends are communist China and East Germany." - The Hon. Sir Reginald Sholl in Australia Day address, Melbourne vide The Age, Melbourne, January 27th.

As far as we know, only The Age reported Sir Reginald Sholl's hard -hitting Australia Day address. And, true to the pro-Communist form it has displayed in recent years, The Age presented its report in such a way that it tended to misrepresent Sir Reginald. Sir Reginald said that instead of a poverty inquiry there should be an inquiry into "the disorders, laziness and ingratitude of young people". This was taken out of context, as Sir Reginald has paid a warm tribute to young people like the swimmer Shane Gould who were trying to excel. But be also said that an inquiry was required into "spiritual and intellectual poverty in Australia". "We could do with the restoration of discipline in society, starting with the schools", he said.

The Australian Heritage Society, a division of The Australian League of Rights, is rushing Sir Reginald Sholl's Australia Day address into booklet form as quickly as possible. The Heritage Society is also issuing shortly an Australian flag with the caption, "This is my Flag". It will be suitable for sticking on car windows and elsewhere. A nation-wide campaign of "showing the flag" is the most effective answer to those bigots and immature people who want to replace the nation's traditional flag.

In an Australia Day address in Canberra, Mr. Al Grassby, Minister for Immigration, attacked what he termed "apathetic suburban Australians" with no national pride. Mr. Grassby appealed for a proper observance of Australia Day. He said, "It's time to encourage a new awareness in our national heritage..." We warmly applaud Mr. Grassby's sentiments, but observe that people will only be aware of their heritage when they are adequately instructed on what that heritage really is, and develop a firm faith in it.

One of the most striking symbols of Australia's heritage is to be seen in the Union Jack in the Australian Flag. The subverters and knockers are encouraging the superficial to believe that Australia would become more "independent" if it stopped using the "British flag". The Union Jack consists of course; of the crosses representing three Christian Saints -it is a Christian flag. Australia is not just another piece of land, "a part of Asia"; it is a country pioneered by people who brought to this country a system of government, law and tradition rooted in the United Kingdom. That heritage has been enriched by many of non-British background. Tampering with the flag is tantamount to tampering with the soul of the nation.

A central feature of the Australian heritage is the Crown. While Mr. Grassby is appealing for great pride in the nation's heritage, his leader Mr. Whitlam and some of his colleagues, are making it plain that they wish to cut the Australian people off from their heritage, The Prime Minister is bordering on the juvenile when he offers $5,000 for a new national anthem, to be selected by public vote. Mr. Whitlam reflects the shallow thinking of many when he says. "We feel it is essential that Australians have an anthem that fittingly embodies our national aspirations and reflects our status as an independent nation."

The Crown, which is the central feature of the Australian constitutional system, is a symbol of the nation's sovereignty. What could be more fitting than an Anthem, which is in fact a Prayer, asking that God protect the person responsible for the institution of the Crown? Most people know so little about the National Anthem that they are unaware that there are a number of verses. Much more publicity should be given to the second verse, which prays to have confounded the knavish tricks of the politicians. A strong case can, of course, be made out for the necessity of a distinctive national song, one that can be used at the Olympic games and similar events. But such a song is not going to become accepted through some type of commercial contest. Such a song will come about through an organic process. In the meantime those who do appreciate their national heritage should make it clear to Mr. Whitlam and to all Members of Parliament that they are opposed to any tampering with the flag or to the proposal to abolish the National Anthem.

SUBSCRIBERS CAN HELP DEFEAT INFLATION

A REALISTIC PICTURE OF COMMUNIST CHINA

"Frankly, the book (China "Spy" by George Watt) could have done with a good ghost writer since in its present form it has only topical appeal because of Francis James, or as a present for a DLP candidate" - From review by Paul Webster in The Australian, January 27th

George Watt writes like the typical down-to-earth Ulsterman he clearly is. He was a construction engineer in Red China, experienced the "Cultural Revolution" and was in Peking at the time of the destruction of the British Embassy in 1967. This was when he was arrested and charged with being a "spy". The final result, after being tried by a "People's Court", was to spend three years as a prisoner in the Ideological Remoulding Prison in Peking, The press reviews we have seen of Watt's book have been either critical or condescending. Watt states bluntly at the beginning of his book that as an Ulsterman he found himself sustained in life "by twin faiths - basic, unshakable belief in Christianity, and fervent allegiance to the British Monarchy." It was his twin faiths, which sustained George Watt in his fight against Communism.

George Watt provides much more valuable information about the Chinese Communists and their intentions than does the erratic Francis James. Watt had experience in West Africa, where he learned at first hand of how only liberal intellectuals divorced from reality could conceive of attempting to make Western-style democracy work in Africa. He also worked in Russia, and again his observations are most valuable. In his review, Paul Webster sneeringly refers to Mr. Watt's publisher, Donald Johnson, as a man who wants to warn the world of the red peril or black incompetence."

Bruce McFarlane in Nation Review writes that "whereas James has a warm-hearted affection for the Chinese people and critically supports their system, Watt has an Englishman's disdain for them, for ordinary people or for any querying of his God given right to do as be pleases amongst the wogs."

Watt is irritation to the pseudo-intellectuals and wishful-thinkers because as an engineer he judges all theories and concepts by the straightforward test of whether they are successful in practice. To him the Chinese Communists are dangerous madmen, divorced from reality. He tells of what he learned about Communist plans in Africa, Ireland and elsewhere. His tutor in the Ideological Remoulding Prison told him "A clever agitator can do more damage to a factory than an aircraft dropping a bomb on the roof."

Watt writes of the "one-week experts" on China he met, including Australian Maoists. He is obviously no economist, but he does not see why British taxpayers should underwrite exports to Red China under the Export Credits Guarantee scheme. George Watt is definitely not "with it" concerning the "new look" approach to Red China. We recommend him as a strong antidote to the current worldwide euphoria concerning the Communist Chinese.
As with all English publications these days, there is only one thing wrong about Watt's most valuable work - the price: $7.74 posted.