EMPTY WORDS AT VERSAILLES

By Eric Butler
Versailles, France, is remembered by an older generation as the centre where an agreement was reached at the end of the First World War. Although generally described as a "peace agreement", it was in fact an agreement, which helped pave the way for the Second World War. Britain's Lloyd George insisted that the international bankers triumphed over both the military victors and vanquished at Versailles, which was not surprising as relatives amongst the international bankers represented both sides.

Successors to those international bankers are unlikely to be concerned about decisions made at the Versailles seven nation economic summit, which ended last week. There were plenty of empty words, but not one suggestion for dealing with the basic cause of the deepening international economic recession.
Even before the summit was over, there was controversy concerning the interpretation of the text of the communiqué!

The West Europeans along with the Japanese and Canadians were extremely critical of the policies of the Reagan Administration, claiming that the international recession would continue while the U.S.A. continued with policies, which, amongst other results, kept interest rates at a high level. Orthodoxy argues that high American interest rates make it impossible for other countries to reduce their interest rates; that investors move funds to where they can obtain the highest interest rates. This argument is, of course, based on the false view that money is a type of commodity, and that if there is a limited supply of the commodity, therefore it commands a higher price in the form of interest.

The Reagan Administration set out to cure the nation's economic problems with a "tight" financial policy. The inflation rate has been reduced, but the price is rising unemployment, now nearly 10 million, and a nation littered with bankruptcies. Officials in some large American cities, where unemployment amongst black teenagers has soared to 40 percent, are taking steps to avert feared summer riots. Even the "experts" advising the Reagan Administration admit that there is worse to come.

A worsening American economy will be used as an excuse for the plight of the Australian and other economies. But any stimulation of the American economy under orthodox debt financial policies will produce rising inflation in the U.S.A. and a drive for still greater exports to dispose of the greater volume of production, which the Americans are unable to purchase themselves.
If other industrial nations follow the Americans, there will be an even fiercer conflict to export, this making nonsense of the platitudes at Versailles concerning the necessity to reduce tariffs.

Coming events must also contradict President Reagan's call at Versailles for the industrialised nations to tighten controls on business deals with Moscow. The Western European nations finally agreed to ensure that the Soviet does not benefit from unduly cheap financial credits. But the agreed formula, also calling for stricter controls on strategic exports to the Soviet Union, is so vague that it is not surprising that Western officials have been quoted as saying that it would be interpreted to suit each nation's trading interests.
The reality is that the American and other Western economies are so geared to exporting to the Communist bloc, that effective economic sanctions against the Communist nations are extremely unlikely. Not even President Reagan dares to halt the massive exports of American grain to the Soviet. Food is as much a strategic item as technology.

The most significant development at Versailles was the agreement to co-ordinate the economic policies of the nations participating. The summit conference agreed on the necessity for "global negotiations" with the Third World nations on aid and trade. In other words, the underlying concept of a New International Economic Order was again advanced. But grandiose theories for re-organising the world, exploiting a growing crisis, are already doomed to failure. They conflict with reality, which is the great disciplinarian in human affairs. History will record the Versailles economic summit conference as yet another example of the foolishness of politicians, economists, bureaucrats and international bankers in their attempts to play at being God.

THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF AUSTRALIA

The A.L.P. spelled out its commitment to cutting all Australia's legal ties with the U.K. if it wins office at the next election." - The Australian, June 14th.

The above is part of the "new" constitutional and legal reform platform of the A.L.P., "unveiled" over the weekend past. The proposals of this platform were old hat when Gough Whitlam tried to introduce them during his "Three Glorious Years", as Professor Manning Clark has referred to the Whitlam Years (1972-75). Supporters will not be astonished to learn that other "new" proposals are for a new Australian Flag, and a new Australian anthem, plus some other proposals, arguably with some merit, such as optional preferential voting.

What is intended is "the complete legal separation of Australia from the United Kingdom Crown and Parliament", and we learn that, "the Labor Party will initiate and support moves to establish with popular acceptance an Australian Flag and national anthem which will more distinctively reflect our national independence and identity". So there!

As it is all too possible that the A.L.P. will win office within the next 18 months, it is also probable that the Australian Heritage Society, a Division of the Australian League of Rights, will once again be frantically busy. It has never ceased its activities since the Glorious Whitlam Years were swept into history, realistically anticipating that its structure and expertise must be maintained for the next assault on our traditions and heritage: there is no question that this assault will come as soon as Senator Gareth Evans and his colleagues get their hands on the levers of power.

What are the plus and minus features of "the prospect before us?" First of all Mr. John Cain, the Premier of Victoria, may hand the next Federal elections to Mr. Fraser on a plate, at the instigation of the Socialist Left (read Communist) faction of Victoria's Labor Party Branch. Australians are Defence conscious as never before, and if the Socialist Left keeps forcing John Cain to persist with his anti-nuclear bans within Victoria (shipping etc.) then Mr. Fraser, a cunning politician, can and will capitalise electorally on this, and would probably win his Federal elections, which would be brought forward in time.
We doubt if Mr. John Cain really could persist with controls over shipping, anyway, as we believe that, constitutionally, this is a Commonwealth preserve.
Should such a Fraser electoral victory come about, then Senator Evans and his republican colleagues would have to twiddle their thumbs for another parliamentary term. We wonder if they would be just as keen on 4-year parliamentary terms under those circumstances?

A "plus" feature of the Socialist/Communist anti-heritage assault to come is the role of the Senate. At least some of the proposed legislation will require Constitutional amendment(s), and even before it came to be put to a referendum, it would need to be passed as Bills through both the Lower and Upper Houses. Obviously, the role of the Australian Democrats and any independents in the Senate is vital.
The situation has come about that neither of the major political parties can now be trusted with control of the Senate, and for our protection from both of them we need the Democrat/Independent counter-weight. It's a deplorable state of affairs, but that's the reality.

A "minus" is the likely role of the High Court of Australia, now that it has handed down its quite radical ruling on the constitutionality of the Commonwealth to frame legislation based on United Nations Declarations, by employing the so-called "External Affairs" powers of the Australian Constitution. This recently came about when the High Court upheld the validity of the Racial Discrimination Act, challenged by the Queensland Government.

The time has come when Australia urgently requires its own "Bricker Amendment" written into the Australian Constitution. This is something of which all supporters should be made aware. This vital protection was denied the people of the United States of America by the narrowest of margins. Gary Allen, author of "None Dare Call It Conspiracy", tells of the famous Bricker Amendment in "Richard Nixon: The Man Behind The Mask": "The Bricker Amendment was framed by Ohio Senator John Bricker, who was concerned that treaties entered into by the President superseded the Constitution…The Bricker Amendment forbade the President to enter into any treaty that would supersede the Constitution of the United States and deny to any citizen the rights guaranteed by it…The Amendment was specifically aimed at the United Nations Charter, which is a treaty. John Bricker feared that the (U.S.) was headed for 'socialism by treaty' through the United Nations...The man responsible for the defeat of the Bricker Amendment was Richard Nixon... the Bricker Amendment lost in the (U.S.) Senate by a single vote.

Some legal authorities, we know, are flabbergasted by the recent radical ruling (above) by Australia's High Court; especially so as we are assured, by Mr. Al Grassby, that much similar legislation will now be appealed. This does not necessarily mean that appeals to the High Court to uphold validities, based on United Nations Declarations and Rulings, will automatically be successful; but the pattern has been set, and we strongly suspect that the Australian Constitution could be circumvented via the High Court.

If such factors as prevailing community attitudes are considerations for a judgment by the High Court then it is difficult to see how the possibility of error is to be avoided, as we know that "prevailing community attitudes" or words to the same effect can describe opinions and outright propaganda. For example, the Government insists that the vast majority of Australians are in support of its immigration programme. Yet it dare not hold a referendum on the issue. We know that such a referendum would show mass disapproval for the Government's immigration programme.

The very fact that the High Court's ruling for the Racial Discrimination Act was 4 to 3 in favour demonstrates that there were individual judgments on both the "spirit" and the "letter" of the law. Forewarned is forearmed. We know that threats to our national sovereignty and individual rights (cleverly disguised as "protections") will come from the United Nations, through the Socialists, at Canberra. The weapons for our protection are the Constitution and the Senate, and these are under attack.