IS PEACE IN ZIMBABWE-RHODESIA A MIRAGE?

The headlines proclaim that peace is about to be achieved in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. But the realities are not changed by optimistic headlines. On the eve of the expected arrival of Lord Soames, to head the British presence as Governor, Zimbabwe-Rhodesian aircraft attacked terrorist bases in Zambia. The Salisbury Government is well aware of the continuing efforts by the Nkomo-Mugabe terrorist forces to infiltrate large numbers of terrorists into Zimbabwe-Rhodesia prior to the proposed new elections. A Salisbury correspondent states that already large numbers of the supporters of Nkomo and Mugabe have dispersed throughout Zimbabwe-Rhodesia in preparation for attempted intimidation or bribery of black electors before the elections.

There are three major military forces operating in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia: the Government's army and airforce, and the two terrorist groups headed by Nkomo and Mugabe. No love is lost between Nkomo and Mugabe and both are determined to eliminate the other in the future. Under the terms of the agreement worked out in London, the three forces are to assemble, under arms, at prearranged places after there has been a ceasefire.

But a ceasefire could prove merely nominal, as there are small roaming bands of terrorists who consist of illiterates without much ideological commitment. All they know is that they have been promised land and wealth. But instead the only prospect for them is to join the ranks of the large number of black unemployed in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, these in the main the result of the economic sanctions against the country ever since it declared for complete independence 14 years ago. Even if Nkomo and Mugabe are genuine in wanting a ceasefire, there are serious doubts that they can impose it.

Almost completely ignorant of Zimbabwe-Rhodesian realities, Prime Minister Fraser has committed Australian troops to a situation, which could prove explosive in more ways than one. Prime Minister Fraser insists that Australians are not going to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as a military, but as a "monitoring force." However, according to the London agreement, the 1,200 strong commonwealth force is to keep the three Zimbabwe-Rhodesian groups in check. If there are violations of the ceasefire, the Commonwealth force, under the control of the British Governor, is supposed to restrain those responsible. But how?
Mr. Fraser insists that the Australians will be "monitoring, recording. It is not even peace keeping in the United Nations sense, and it is certainly not in a fighting role." Presumably Australians will be able to use their rifles and pistols if they are attacked!

Even if with the use of continuing terrorism and intimidation Nkomo and Mugabe cannot wrest control of Government from Bishop Muzorewa, these two competing terrorists, backed by the Soviet, will claim that they were robbed and will continue their murderous campaign. If the Nkomo-Mugabe candidates can intimidate or bribe enough electors to oust the Muzorewa Government, then it is certain there will be bloody reprisals against many Muzorewa supporters. The present stream of whites leaving the country will reach flood proportions.

All these and other possibilities have been warned about by those who know the realities of the situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. But they have been ignored by the Frasers of the Western world, who continue to live in a world of wishful thinking and blatant political expediency. Genuine peace in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia is a mirage.

Mr. Enoch Powell has been one British politician who has foreseen the possibility of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia becoming Britain's Vietnam once Lord Soames and British troops arrive. It is now too late to halt the course of disaster in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. But it is not too late to learn the lessons. And should the worst happen, Malcolm Fraser must not be allowed to forget that he was one of the Western politicians primarily responsible for the betrayal of Civilisation in Southern Africa.

BOB HAWKE IGNORES BASIC CAUSE OF MIDDLE EAST CRISIS

Mr. Bob Hawke's fifth and final Boyer Lecture for the ABC was as dangerously misleading as his first, in which he called for the abolition of the States. Mr. Hawke says that Australia could take the initiative to solve the Middle East crisis. He says that a solution demands "new bold and imaginative thinking about issues which can, literally, be a matter of life and death for all of us."
But while Mr. Hawke referred to the question of the possibility of establishing an independent Palestinian State, he took the Israeli view that such a State could prove a base from which Israel was threatened. Mr. Hawke did not refer to the fact that prominent Israelis have urged that so far from a Palestinian State being accepted on the West Bank of the Jordan the whole of this area should be incorporated permanently into a greater Israel.

Further Israeli expansion is a real threat throughout the Arab world. This threat is being exploited by Moslem fanatics everywhere including Iran. And all this suits the Soviet strategists perfectly.

Neither Mr. Bob Hawke nor anyone else can resolve the Middle East crisis unless the basic cause of the crisis is faced and acted upon. As warned by the distinguished American Jew, Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, the Zionist aggression, backed by the Soviet, which thrust the new State of Israel into the heart of the Arab world, dispossessing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in the process, could ultimately lose the West the good will of the whole Moslem world - and vital oil supplies.

Writing in his journal, "Middle East Perspective", for November, Dr. Lilienthal says something much more important than Mr. Hawke has: "The known presence of a plethora of Jewish organisations, ever ready to brandish the anti-Semitic label, has imparted so powerful a sensitivity that discussion, muted doubts and debate on the grave issues involved have been nearly totally crushed. Any and all criticism of the policies of Israel has been stifled. The emotional reaction engendered by the Nazi genocide has been responsible for this dangerous, ominous blackout. The spectre of the Holocaust has been promoted to yield unquestioned support of Israel. Led by an unholy combination of dogmatic liberals and anti-Communist conservatives, Americans have become totally convinced that whatever is good for the Zionist State is twice as good for the United States.
With the aid of a cowed media, the relentless, concerted and gigantic efforts of Zionism have excluded all information pertinent to any understanding of the rights of the Palestinian people. It is they who have been the core of the raging, 31-year Middle East conflict... By reason of their numbers, their sense of national identity and capacity for self-government and independence, the Palestinians are entitled to a state of their own and their own soil. But their claim has been shrouded from purview by the media's inexorable double standard..."

The most realistic policy Australia can initiate is one of recognising the right of the Palestinians to a State of their own, with the Western powers endorsing the security of Israel as a small, independent State in the Middle East. Much more encouraging than Mr. Hawke's rhetoric is the news from the U.S.A. that former Governor John Connally, seeking the Republican nomination for the 1980 Presidential election, is putting forward a peace plan for the Middle East based upon acceptance of a Palestinian State. Connally will be subjected to the same ruthless tactics, which forced Dr. Lilienthal's publishers to refuse to republish his major work, "The Zionist Connection". Lilienthal has brought a $3 million action against them and a former agent "for breach of contract and conspiracy". In the meantime arrangements have been made for a limited edition by another publisher and it is hoped that a small supply will be available in Australia in the early part of next year.

FROM HANSARD

The Senate (November 13th): Senator Glenister Shiel (N.C.P. Qld.): Human Rights Legislation: "....there is a big difference between a duty and a right. It is the duty of parents to provide most of these things. They should not be written into law as a right, which infringes other people's rights because they would have to provide, say, the affection, love and understanding; the nutrition, medical care and education. Having the rights to full opportunity, to partake of play and recreation, is also a dicey proposition. It implies that someone has to provide it. The right to a name and nationality can be granted because it does not infringe any one else's rights.
"Children are said to have the right to be brought up in a spirit of peace and universal brotherhood. I have just cited a number of nations where one cannot even find that set of circumstances. The tenth suggested right is the right to enjoy all of the foregoing rights irrespective of race, religion, colour, creed and national or social origin. That implies that all of the other proposals are to be considered rights, which is not correct....
"There has to be a contract between the governor and the governed if the people are to be free, and people must have the ability to dismiss their government if it is not providing a rule that is suitable to them...
...morality is largely a quality of human beings - not governments - but individuals - and inequality is also brought about because people have different talents and have different wants and different needs. Laws enforcing equality merely show up different talents…
"The reason for the introduction of the (Human Rights) Bill is merely that the Executive of the Government made a promise. It is one of the promises that it is not going to break. It wants to improve its image in the world, to be a leader, to show that Australia is aware of human rights. It wants to maintain that position. A Conference will be held next July in Luxemburg, and I am sure that it will be announced that we are moving right along with this human rights legislation. My main objection to this Bill is that an outside agency is determining the laws to be passed in this country. All the definitions of the rights that are in this (U.N.) Covenant are qualified by the proviso that one does not break any law. The Bill is unnecessary....
"Another thing I do not like about it is that the officers who are to administer this law (Human Rights Commission officers) and their papers, are to be removed outside our processes of law. In effect, we would have an international body determining what the laws in the country are to be, and the officers removed from our own legal process."

Senator John Carrick (Lib.-NSW): "I did see a report of Mr. Hawke's comments (to abolish the States). I also noted that at the same time Mr. Hayden was reiterating the intention of the Australia Labor Party to reduce the powers of the Senate. The two statements should be considered together because the Senate is a protector of States and State rights."

Senator Don Chipp: What Rubbish!

Senator Carrick: "...the fact of the matter is that Mr. Hawke is reiterating what was said by Gough Whitlam who saw the destruction of the States - both in a direct and indirect way, as part of the central theme of Labor policy..."