STANDING TO BE COUNTED

We sympathise with the view of Mr. Michael Barnard, the courageous anti-Communist Melbourne "Age" correspondent, who says that he feels that Mr. Fraser must be given some credit for his current anti-Soviet stand; that he may be naive, but cannot believe that what Australians are seeing is merely cynical electioneering.

In the face of the blatant Soviet move into Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter had no alternative to a strong reaction. Neither did Prime Minister Fraser. And both political leaders are well aware that prior to the Iranian revolution and the taking of American hostages in Teheran, they were threatened by major domestic problems. Even without increased oil prices, American inflation for the December quarter of 1979 would have been astronomical. As it was, it reached the highest level since the end of the Second World War.

Australian electors would be less cynical about Mr. Fraser's current anti-Soviet policy if Mr. Fraser had not blatantly broken every major promise made before the last two Federal Elections. High unemployment, high interest rates, increased taxation, and rising inflation (which will, as a result of Mr. Fraser's policies, be even higher this year) is irrefutable evidence of the bankruptcy of the Fraser Government.
The lack of enthusiasm for the Fraser Government may be judged by the public opinion polls showing strong electoral support for a divided Labor Party led by the weak Mr. Hayden. The same polls reveal that Mr. Bob Hawke commands far greater electoral support than either Mr. Fraser or Mr. Hayden. As Mr. Hawke has not as yet advanced any real alternative finance economic policies on which he might be judged, it appears that many desperate electors are unfortunately looking for some type of a charismatic leader, a Caesar. Mr. Bob Hawke, "the democratic Socialist", would be just as disastrous as that other charismatic leader, Mr. Gough Whitlam.

Prime Minister Fraser's apologists claim that he has been "consistent" in his anti-Soviet stand. As we have previously pointed out, early in 1976 Mr. Fraser did, with the aid of Defence Minister Killen, engage in a little harmless wrist tapping of the Soviet concerning the Indian Ocean. But, following that, it increased exports to the Soviet. Real defence spending was cut severely, the claim being made that the "fight" against inflation must have first priority. Well, in spite of the double talk of Federal Treasurer John Howard, that "fight" has been lost.

A major aspect of Soviet strategy concerning the thrust to control Middle East oil has been the thrust into Africa, using Cuban troops. A feature of that strategy has been the campaign against Rhodesia and South Africa. Upon coming to office, Mr. Fraser continual and intensified the Whitlam campaign against Southern Africa. If, as appears possible, the Marxist Robert Mugabe comes to power in Rhodesia, Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser will have played a major role in making this possible.
Support for Pakistan is being offered in spite of the absence of that "majority rule" which it was claimed Rhodesia and South Africa should be pressured into granting.

Southern Africa is, as stressed by the distinguished British military strategist, General Sir Walter Walker, a major front line for an embattled West. Prime Minister Carter and Prime Minister Fraser rightly stress the importance of Middle East oil. But Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf oil countries do not have "majority rule". Then why are they treated differently from Rhodesia and South Africa? It is the blatant double standards which have produced so many cynics that it is not surprising that many are asking how genuine is the present anti-Soviet stand.

Embarrassed by the news on the eve of his departure for overseas that negotiations were under way to sell strategic mineral sand rutile to the Soviet, Mr. Fraser said that negotiations were to be "suspended". But it would be interesting, for example, to know how much Australian wool, processed with technology partly financed from levies imposed upon Australian woolgrowers (see Barbara Treloar' s "Fleeced", $2.45 posted) is helping to keep Soviet troops warm in the harsh Afghanistan winter. There is no suggestion that Australia's wool exports to the Soviet be ceased.

A threatened partial boycott of the Olympic Games is not going to result in the Soviet retreating from Afghanistan by February 20th. The Games will go ahead in one form or another. But what about a real anti-Soviet offensive with a complete economic boycott of the Soviet and the withdrawal of all diplomatic recognition? How many will stand to be counted on this issue?

The Soviet strategists in the Kremlin will be smiling smugly as they read comments such as the following in an editorial in "The Herald", Melbourne, of January 28: "Our trade balance with the USSR is overwhelmingly in our favour and the plain fact is that it would probably do us more damage than the Soviet Union to alter this significantly."
"The Herald" accepts the orthodox, but quite insane teaching that a nation becomes wealthier by exporting more than it imports. So long as that teaching is accepted, and finance made available to finance the "favourable balance of trade" policy, the end result is inevitable.

If the Fraser Government can win the next election on an anti-Soviet policy of which the major feature is only opposition to the Olympic Games, and continues to permit massive exports to the Soviet, we fear that this will result in a new wave of cynicism concerning politicians and a further weakening of what little democratic spirit is left. That is why we believe that this is a time for all genuine anti-totalitarians to stand to be counted.

BRIEF COMMENTS

One more example of political patronage and "jobs for the boys"? Prime Minister Fraser's former adviser and speech writer, Mr. Petro Georgiou, born in Greece and a Melbourne University political science graduate, has been appointed as fulltime director of the Institute of Multicultural affairs. Mr. Georgiou should be able to keep the wolf from the door on a salary listed as being up to $42,111 a year. And of course the Institute can be guaranteed to produce a new expanding Commonwealth bureaucracy financed by the taxpayers.

Speaking to a military delegation from Communist countries last year, Samora Machel, Communist dictator of Mozambique and close friend of Robert Mugabe, whose anti-Rhodesian terrorists operated from Mozambique, said that South Africa was the ultimate target of Marxist forces in Africa. Machel said that Marxism would eventually take over Rhodesia. Upon returning to Rhodesia, Mugabe, who has openly advocated the establishment of a Marxist society, is now trying to project himself as a moderate who wishes to cooperate with the whites. Machel has advised him to use this approach, a case of Marxist dialectics.

Several commentators have observed that Bob Hawke, unlike his party leader, Bill Hayden, has adopted an extremely low profile on the Olympic Games debate. Mr. Hawke is following the lead of his Zionist colleague, Mr. Isi Leibler, whose travel agency is going to lose a lot of business if no Australians go to the Games! Mr. Leibler flew to London to participate in an international Zionist meeting on Jan. 17 to discuss developments relating to the Olympic Games. At this stage Israel has not decided to boycott the Games.

FINANCING THE DEFENCE OF FREEDOM

The New Zealand Government's expulsion of the Soviet Ambassador, Mr. Vasevolad Safinsky, on the grounds of his "personal involvement" in the transfer of funds from Moscow to New Zealand's Socialist Unity Party - a Moscow-line Communist Party - merely highlights a general practice in which the Soviet Union has been engaged for a long time. Anyone who has studied financial appeals conducted by Communist Parties has noted how they are suddenly filled when far short of their objectives.
There are a variety of methods by which the Soviet finances its activities around the free world, which contribute towards advancing the Soviet's overall strategy. Peking to a lesser extent does likewise, heavily subsidising, for example, a flood of literature.

Unlike the different Marxist groups, the Australian League of Rights has no other source of finance except that provided by supporters, contributions at meetings and the sale of literature. As the crisis predicted by the League develops, the need for adequate financial support for the League was never greater. Volunteer brochure distributors can only distribute what has been published by ourselves at our own expense. Those charging the League with having "massive sums" at its disposal are really referring to themselves. The League does not require more than a relatively small Basic Fund. But it MUST have that Fund if it is to match the Marxist subversives and their allies. The 1979-80 Basic Fund is running behind schedule at the very time when the threat to what remains of Civilisation is being intensified. The Decade of Decisive Decisions is upon us. To that majority of our readers who have not yet contributed, we can but state the hard facts. We trust that over the next few weeks we can announce a big increase in contributions.