"A MOTLEY BUNCH" MEETS

One of the Australian journalists covering the Commonwealth Conference in Zambia, Peter Costigan, writes in "The Herald", Melbourne, on August 1st, that "very few Australian leaders have put us so firmly on the side of the motley bunch of military dictators, one party populists and economic charlatans, who comprise the leadership of most of black Africa."

Although not featured in the headlines, Prime Minister Fraser has made it clear that one of his reasons for courting the "motley bunch" meeting in Lusaka, was to advance the New International Economic Order concept. So far from being concerned about preserving a Commonwealth in which the majority of present members support the traditional British system of limited constitutional Government, the "motley bunch" is only concerned about power.

It is time to recall the words of wisdom from a man who did not have one drop of British blood in his veins, Sir Roy Welensky, former Prime Minister of the Central African Federation, which consisted of Rhodesia, Zambia (Northern Rhodesia) and Malawi (Nyasaland) Sir Roy warned that the Commonwealth could not serve any worthwhile purpose unless its members agreed in advance to accept certain basic rules of conduct. One of these should be no interference in the domestic affairs of other members. Prime Minister Fraser has joined with a "motley bunch" to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, and by so doing has invited this same "motley bunch" to interfere in the internal affairs of Australia, which, of course they will, eventually.

The Lusaka conference started in an atmosphere of hypocrisy. Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia, who runs a one party dictatorship after destroying the constitution under which a British Government granted Zambia independence, in the process destroying the Central African Federation - hosted a surprise conference of the five "frontline" African States on the eve of the Commonwealth conference. Two of the most prominent members of these States are the Communist dominated States of Angola and Mozambique. Kaunda insisted for the umpteenth time that "majority rule" had to be introduced into Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Like Malcolm Fraser, Kaunda spelt out that there was no "majority rule" in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia because the whites had been left with too much power.

Obviously stung by the criticism he has received from inside his own Liberal Party ranks, Prime Minister Fraser said in Lusaka on Friday of last week that he challenged critics of his Rhodesia policy to study "the issues and the facts."
Unlike his leading critics inside the Government parties, men like Senator Glen Sheil of Queensland; Prime Minister Fraser has never visited Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, or South Africa. Prior to the Commonwealth conference in Zambia, he had never visited Africa.

He charged his critics with being "simplistic" but his own many statements on African affairs reveal an appalling and frightening ignorance. He made the incredible statement that by recognising the Mozorewa Government "you would be casting a new regime into a totally hostile and alien environment in which it would probably not survive six months or a year. There would be increased guerrilla activity and a very likely involvement of East German or Soviet arms."

The man who cannot solve Australia's mounting domestic problems, seeks to strut as a world statesman, apparently so ignorant of the realities of the Zimbabwe-Rhodesian affair that he does not know that Nkomo's many acts of cold blooded terrorism, which Mr. Fraser calls "guerilla activity", have been taking place with Soviet military equipment. The man who has cynically broken more promises than any other Australian Prime Minister then had the effrontery to talk about "the high principle involved in this issue", stating that "we cannot accept the view that one race has a right for superiority over another." Prime Minister Fraser has spelt it out that under the present Zimbabwe- Rhodesian constitution the white minority has too much influence.

President Nyere of Tanzania, a "democratic socialist" who also runs a one party dictatorship, and who has been promised Australian aid by Mr. Fraser, a spokesman for the "frontline" States - which means he is spokesman for the Communists - was hailed for a "moderate" stand on Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Why? Because he agreed that under a new constitution "he did not rule out the existence for minorities." But then he came to the nub of the issue: the present constitution, gave the whites power over judiciary, police and military, which made "any talk of majority rule ridiculous."
The truth is that when Bishop Muzorewa and other black leaders sat down with the whites to discuss a new constitution, they realised that unless the direction of the police and the armed forces was under those best qualified to provide it, the whites, then not sufficient whites would remain to operate the economy. The end result would be utter chaos. This is exactly what Nkomo and Mugabe and their Communist backers want. And one of their strongest allies has been Malcolm John Fraser of Australia.

Any self respecting Australian Prime Minister would, instead of kowtowing to the "motley bunch", have bluntly said that how the people of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia arrange their own internal affairs is their business and that Australia supported the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of another country - unless that country is being used as a base for waging war in all its forms against other nations. Has anyone heard Mr. Fraser suggesting that the Free World stop economic blood transfusions to the gangsters running the Soviet Union, Communist China or other Communist nations?

Malcolm Fraser is so devoid of principle, that in a desperate attempt to gain some points from his African trip, he is even prepared to try to organise supplies of Nigerian oil with the military dictator who once praised Idi Amin. The Nigerian treatment of the British on the oil issue demonstrated how they would use oil to try to blackmail others. By trying to make a "big fellow" of himself with the "motley bunch" of black dictators in Africa, and by the anti-white insults he has made, Malcolm Fraser has only helped to convince these dictators that the white man is on the run everywhere.

As the brilliant South African writer, Ivor Benson, shows in his last work, "The Undeclared War for Africa" (Price $2.35 posted) the black "motley bunch" are but the tools of the very whites they abuse. In this case the whites are Marxists as are their unholy allies, the Rockefellers and fellow international financiers. Little do the black dictators realise that they are regarded as but pawns in the grand design to create the World State via The New International Economic Order. Whether Malcolm Fraser is a knave or a fool in all this does not really matter. Irrespective of what he is, the time has come for all self-respecting Australians to make it clear that they have had enough of him.

BRIEF COMMENTS

A recent report from Salisbury, Zimbabwe-Rhodesia says that the Government of that country regards the Fraser Government as the most vindictive in the world - outside the Communist bloc. The Fraser Government has now further substantiated that view. The world bowling championship is to be held in Frankston, Victoria, in January-February next year. The South Africans won all four events in the last world championship in 1976 and are current holders of the Leonard Cup. But the policy of the Fraser Government prevents the South Africans from defending their championship. The Rhodesians will also be prevented from tainting Australia. Surely this mean, spiteful and childish attitude does not reflect the real Australia?

You have, of course, heard for the past three years about "the encouraging signs" of economic recovery resulting from the applied wisdom of the Fraser Government. Retail sales slumped about 2% in real terms in the June quarter. This slump has taken place in spite of the biggest number of sales, discounting, and bankruptcies in Australia since the days of the Great Depression. The state of the nation has been symbolised by the pathetic public plea of the wine industry, asking Treasurer John Howard not to tax it any further. In a genuine democracy the electors would be TELLING their paid political servants what is wanted. The most immediate essential is a substantial reduction in TOTAL taxation.

The increased rate of inflation in the U.S.A. has resulted in the Arab oil producers claiming that they will have to increase crude oil prices. The Arabs do not relish the idea of the credits they receive for their only major natural product, oil, progressively losing their value. Inflation is the major factor in progressive convulsions sweeping the whole world. It is the result of financial policies, which are mathematically certain to sustain inflation - and industrial and other social unrest.

A succession of Washington betrayals of the non-Communist world - the latest being in Nicaragua has resulted in what Mr. Eric Butler warned about upon his return from overseas this year: the U.S.A. cannot now depend upon Saudi Arabia in another Middle East crisis. The Saudis were badly shaken by what happened in Iran and the blatant betrayal of Taiwan, with whom the Saudis have close relations. Indirect contact has been made with the Soviet, who have agreed to assist an Arab arms industry under certain conditions.

A MELBOURNE ACTIONIST has provided us with a copy of a special interview with the Ayatollah Khomenie, which was published in the Paris (France) daily - Le Monde - on May 10th last, but given before the expulsion of the Shah of Iran. We can reprint only small extracts from the Ayatollah's replies:
these confirm our view that the Ayatollah's regime is seen by the World Power Movement as being temporary. We are sure the Ayatollah doesn't see it this way. It remains to be seen whether or not the Ayatollah's "Islamic Revolt" will be able to stand against the manipulations, and subversion, of the Kremlin:
"Question. What do you think of the Islamic-Marxist label, which the Shah's regime uses all the time to denounce the rebels? Do you have ties with the extreme Left?
Answer. "There has never been an alliance between the Moslem population fighting the Shah, and Communist elements, extremist or otherwise. In my proclamations I have always emphasised that the Moslem people must remain homogeneous in their struggle and forbid themselves any systematic collaboration with Communist elements." (In spite of this, we have little doubt that organised Communist elements were aiding and abetting the anti-Shah forces with all vigour: even if the Ayatollah didn't realise it, which itself is doubtful. . . . . .On Target)
"Question: .... Would you envisage a tactical alliance with the Marxists in order to overthrow the Shah?
"Answer. ....... I have ordered my flock not to do so. We are opposed to their ideas: we know they want to stab us in the back, and if they achieved power they would establish a dictatorial regime contrary to the spirit of Islam...."
"Question.... Is the Shah's policy in favour of Israel one of the reasons for your opposition to the regime.
"Answer. Yes, because it has usurped a Moslem people's land and committed innumerable crimes. By maintaining diplomatic relations with Israel and granting economic aid to that country, the Shah is going against the interests of Islam and the Moslems."
"Question. Would you like Iran to join the Arab countries in their struggle against Israel?
"Answer. I have always strongly urged Moslems throughout the world to unite to fight their enemies, including Israel. Unfortunately, my appeals have not been heeded by the different regimes which have succeeded each other in Moslem countries." (This is a reference to Egypt, in particular.... On Target)
"Question... What is your attitude towards the United States?
"Answer ..... I have several times defined my attitude towards the United States, and the other big powers, which exploit the wealth of poor countries, fostering their agents in these countries and supporting the repression, exerted against the peoples of the Third World. The United States, which was behind the 1953 coup d'etat, and the Shah's return to, and continuance in power, has not changed its policy. As long as this is the case, my position will remain unchanged.
"Question... Do you believe, as some people do, that the United States would like to establish a liberal regime in Iran?
"Answer. The Declaration of respect for human rights? Nothing but words; I do not believe in it. One only has to observe that, during his visit to Teheran, President Carter repeated his support for the Shah, and that, what is more, this backing is not contradicted in practice. In any event, we will never accept a regime which is outwardly liberal but dictatorial in substance." (There is strong evidence that the United States DID pull the rug from under the Shah, to which we referred in our issue of March 9….. On. Target).