CAN RHODESIA SURVIVE?

Mr. Eric Butler reports from Salisbury, Rhodesia
I flew into Rhodesia in the middle of the biggest internal political upheaval since the Smith Government made its declaration of independence in 1965.

While the revolt of twelve Government Party Members was triggered by the Government's amendment to the Land Tenure Act, it was in fact the reflection of a growing concern with policies of the Smith Government and the manner in which it is handling the rapidly escalating crisis, including the terrorist attacks. Even amongst those who supported the Government's changes to the Land Tenure Act, changes designed primarily to placate "world opinion", there were those who privately are most apprehensive about the changes.

I had to tell both Rhodesian officials and Ministers that irrespective of what changes they make internally, these would not halt the mounting international offensive against Rhodesia. Rhodesia's only hope is a hard-line political, military and psychological offensive, which will rally South African public opinion.

The defensive strategy of the Smith Government, imposed to a great extent by pressures from the South African Government, must clearly end eventually in disaster. Wishful thinking, even in the face of the most obvious of unpleasant facts, is a very common and natural human attribute. I was not surprised, therefore, to learn that even after Prime Minister Smith's surrender speech of September 24th last year, yielding to the diabolical pressures applied by Dr. Henry Kissinger, large numbers of Rhodesians hung to the view that "good old Smithy" has something up his sleeve and would see them through. But the only card, which Ian Smith can now play, is the bold one, staking everything on a dramatic change of course.

It may be that the long years of dogged fighting have taken their toll of Ian Smith, that he is not capable of what is required. This view is gaining strength in Rhodesia amongst the constructive opponents of the Smith Government's policies, who suggest that a new look approach requires a new and younger leader. Such opponents pay tribute to the long years of service, which Mr. Smith has given.

Although I have satisfied myself beyond all argument that the Kissinger plan for Rhodesia was only accepted, reluctantly, by Prime Minister Smith as the result of pressure applied by a South African Government, also under pressure, it was disturbing to learn that Mr. Smith was greatly impressed by Dr. Kissinger and had no doubt about his sincerity. There is no doubt that Dr. Kissinger has been a formidable performer. But his track record shows him consistently making agreements, which have favoured the Soviet.

As I pointed out in a Rhodesian television programme, one of the end results of Dr. Kissinger's Vietnam programme, forced upon the Thieu Government in the same way that South Africa was forced to pressure Mr. Smith, was not only the Communist conquest of the whole of Indo-China, but butchery on a scale which numbs the senses when one even considers it. Dr. Kissinger has never expressed any regrets. He has not returned his Nobel Peace prize.

Why should a man who formally agreed at the Helsinki Conference that the millions of captive peoples of Eastern Europe should be permanently under Soviet domination, be really concerned about the plight of a quarter of a million Europeans in Rhodesia?
I fear that Mr. Smith is clutching at straws by believing in the integrity of Dr. Kissinger and his backers. Many of his colleagues have a much more realistic view and the future of Rhodesia, and the whole of Southern Africa, now rests in their hands.

The deep shadow now hanging over Southern Africa is the direct result of the betrayal in Angola, where Dr. Kissinger and his kind permit the Soviet to demonstrate how to use the Cubans as their mercenaries. It is a tragedy that the South African Government, whose troops demonstrated that they could easily defeat Cuban troops, even equipped with sophisticated Soviet weapons, did not defy Dr. Kissinger. But as one senior official said to me, "what can you do when South Africa was threatened with a loss of oil from Iran, the price of gold had been collapsed, and the suggestion made that the United States would not use its veto at the United Nations to stop any resolution that there should be an economic blockade of South Africa?"

Here is the nub of the Southern African crisis. Can a stand be made before Soviet strategy reaches an irresistible stage? Time is short.

As I study the evidence of the Soviet build up in Mozambique, a Marxist dominated base from which the Soviet thrust against Rhodesia is being intensified via terrorist attacks, I feel sick at heart every time I think of an Australian Government giving aid to Mozambique, and am asked what type of a creature is Mr. Ian Sinclair, who called upon the Smith Government to surrender to the Soviet backed criminals Nkomo and Robert Mugabe. Soviet equipment is now being flown from Mozambique into Botswanna. Soviet "fishing" fleets are being moved into position off both Angola and Mozambique. Nkomo has been broadcasting from Moscow, threatening what is going to happen if the Rhodesians do not capitulate.

That "moderate" African leader, President Nyerere of Tanzania, threatens that he may have to invite Red Chinese troops in. Not one African leader has publicly condemned the mass killer Idi Amin. This is Africa today as the stage is set for the growing assault on Rhodesia.

I finished my Salisbury address with an expression of my faith that Rhodesia is still undefeated. But I fear the worst now unless Rhodesia can launch a new initiative. This would, of course, force the Soviet and its clients to more openly show their hand.

If the Rhodesians forced South Africa into a situation where it had to come openly on to Rhodesia's side against the Soviet thrust, then it is possible that the West might rally. If it will not, or cannot, then the West's sun has set.

Solzhenitsyn said that the Soviet thrust into Angola was the first blow in the final battle for the world. If Rhodesia can survive, this will be a major turning point in the battle. Writing from the major front line of that battle, I make the appeal for every Australian to do everything in his or her power to force the Fraser Government to, at the very least stop all aid to Mozambique and to refuse to participate in the campaign of pressure against Rhodesia and South Africa.

BRIEF COMMENTS

"The Communist task, however, is to investigate the facts, to seek truth from facts just as Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-tung have done". So said Comrade E.F. Hill, Chairman of the Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist) in his work: "Australian's Revolution: On the Struggle for a Marxist-Leninist Communist Party". The theme of this work is that good Communists must use, as a tool, Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung Thought in the struggle mentioned above. But we feel that Comrade Hill is a little behind the times, and may shortly be required to shift his position, if he wishes to remain Chairman of the Party in Australia. The Intelligence Digest ('U.K.) "Weekly Review" (Feb. 16th), has this to say about the current leadership of Red China in Peking: "Yet it is a leadership dedicated to Marxism as interpreted by Chairman Mao in his celebrated 'thoughts'. Indeed, Mao's 'thoughts' are rapidly being buried (our emphasis) and Russia is criticised for not being genuinely Marxist any longer." This does not surprise us at all. It is to be expected; for how can the new leadership operate from week to week, month to month, year to year, in the shadow of Chairman Mao? This would mean that every turn and twist that the leadership makes would continually be under scrutiny by those swearing undying allegiance to Mao Tse-tung 'thought'?; so that there could be nothing but criticism and comparisons, and hostilities surrounding every action, every policy. No, Mao Tse-tung 'thought' will have to go, if the present Peking leadership's position is to stay tenable. We hope that Comrade Hill is reading these lines.

In the March 16th issue of "Weekly Review", mentioned above, there is a comment concerning Australia, with which we must agree. It runs "Australian Republicanism is aimed not at the British Monarch, but at establishing a Socialist dictatorship. Socialists cannot forgive the Queen's representative for giving the Australian people the chance to remove the corrupt Whitlam Labour Government."

Thumbing through our current copy of "Direct Action", the weekly journal of the Socialist Youth Alliance and the Socialist Workers Party (Marxist- Trotskyite) we notice that its supporters are, in the main, very, very, angry young Marxists with a particular barrow to push. The issue of March 17th provides a report from the Washington Post (U.S.A.) Feb. 16th concerning South Africa. Mr. Connie Mulder, South African Minister of the Interior and Information is reported to have said recently: "Let me just say that if we (South Africa) are attacked no rules apply at all if it comes to a question of our existence. We will use all means at our disposal, whatever they may be. It is true that we have completed our own (nuclear enrichment) pilot plant that uses very advanced technology, and that we have major uranium resources."