B.H.P. AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ORDER

"B.H.P.'s major link with steel in the future will be as a supplier to the world's more efficient steel makers. Its own steel making will take a much reduced role." - Bryan Frith, in The Australian (Jan. 29-30)

Those who are not yet familiar with the Great Global Plan of the world's Internationalists should study the booklet - "Upon That Mountain: A Plot to Betray Australia's Independence by Jeremy Lee. Among the implications which flow from the Declaration of the United Nations for a new international economic order of May 1st, 1974 are:
"The reduction of industrial and manufacturing expertise in the developed nations, to concur with a build up of industrial resources in less developed nations, by transfer from the developed countries."

This flows from the Lima Declaration of Industrial Development and Co-operation made at the Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) on December 6th, 1973 which resolves inter alia: "That special attention should be given to the least developed countries which would enjoy a net transfer of resources from the developed countries in the form of technical and financial resources as well as capital goods, to enable the least developed countries to accelerate their industrialisation..."

The phasing out of B.H.P. as a producer of steel with Australia's consequent new dependence on Asian countries, Japan and Korea in particular, for our future supplies of steel, is in line with the Big Idea. Japan is certainly a developed country; however we expect to see smaller, less developed countries assume greater prominence in industrialisation as time passes. Australia's "new" role is to be that of a supplier of resources for the new emerging industrial giants of Asia: viz, minerals, particularly iron ore, wood chip, oil and natural gas; and others (coal).

Now what about the finance for the B.H.P.-Utah deal, stated to be somewhere in the range of $2.5 Billion. Quite obviously this has already been arranged, and is fully endorsed by International Finance. This is another way of saying that the New International Economic Order is the policy of International Finance, or that International Finance supports the same policy.
Whatever the policy, the N.I.E.O. could not possibly take effect without the full support of International Finance as the sums of money involved are astronomical and quite beyond the resources of even the multinationals and even most governments of nations around the world. This is internationalism with all the stops out!

What are the implications for Australia of the B.H.P.-Utah deal? They are terrible! First of all we lose control over our own production of steel. Has anyone in the Government yet thought of the effect of this on our Defence? In a time of war, how available will steel supplies be for munitions for the Defence of Australia. How will we build tanks, planes, guns, and ships if our steel supplies are to come from abroad?
Secondly, something like 70% of the assets of the B.H.P. takeover will be owned by foreign consortia.

We have noticed that Labor Party spokesmen have praised the B.H.P. takeover as a "buying back of the farm", but this isn't accurate at all. Generally, "Labor" goes along with this deal, which we would expect. As Socialists, we expect members of the Australian Labor Party to endorse any moves leading to internationalism and to One World, and we have not been disappointed.
The coalition Government of Australia must have been in the know for at least months, if not a few years; so they fully endorse this practical implementation of the New International Economic Order.

As we have remarked many times in these pages, ALL political parties represent Finance. In the words of C.H.Douglas, there is only one party, and that is the Financial Party. He said that in 1936, and further added that this situation had obtained for at least one hundred years preceding that date. There are now a few voices being raised in warning against Australia's new vulnerability. Australia must retain her own steel industries, and her control over these. Loss of both is fraught with danger for us all.

THE UNITING CHURCH AND REVOLUTION

"Once upon a time, the power base of the radical Left in Australia was the union movement. In recent years, as the Old Left in the unions has become more conservative, a new breed of middle class, university educated radicals has seized power in a number of fairly dormant, but widely respected, institutions...." The Bulletin, January 25th.

The above comment from The Bulletin, concluded... "Tim Duncan this week examines how 'liberation theologists' have taken over the political arm of the Uniting Church..." Australia's Uniting Church formation follows the unification (in Australia only) of the Presbyterian, Methodist, and Congregational Churches. Such unification wasn't smooth by any means.
There have been, and indeed still are, factions of the "old" Presbyterian and Methodist Churches which have stood out against absorbtion into a corporate body. Such an example was the "dispute" over Scotch College in Melbourne, control of which came to a legal action between the "new" Presbyterian faction of the Uniting Church, and what was once known as the "continuing" Presbyterian Church.

This was not an isolated incident. Mr. Tim Duncan well remarks, "The question is how long the Uniting Church will remain united if it continues to move away from the political centre." We cannot quote at length from Mr. Duncan's article; those interested should persue his article for themselves: it is well worth persuing.

Perhaps his main thrust of accusation of Leftist influence in the Uniting Church may be given credibility by the series of resolutions passed by the national governing body of the Uniting Church in May 1982. Two only are: "Removal of all foreign military installations from Australia". (This means American bases, of course.) "Prohibition of foreign military use of Australian bases for "foreign", again read "American".

Other give away "pointers" are "solidarity" with the Aboriginal people "in their struggle for self-determination"; the selling of any shares which the Church may have in companies which trade with South Africa; opposition to any nuclear power generation in Australia; opposition to "elitism" in education. Victorian Synod also urges Church commitment to the "peace movement". And so it goes on, and on, and on. Enough's enough!

Now, we have a little something ourselves, which may have even escaped the attention of Mr. Duncan, and The Bulletin. On Friday, November 12th, last year (1982) a member of our Head Office Staff bought on the streets of Melbourne a copy of the Trotskyist newspaper - Direct Action, which is published regularly by the Trotskyist Socialist Youth Alliance. Now with each copy sold was included a pamphlet - "Stop the City": "Fight Against Poverty and Unemployment" (City Square, Friday, November 12, 5 p.m.) In the bottom left hand corner of the pamphlet, in small print (we needed a magnifying glass to read it) is the notice: "Victorian Coalition Against Poverty and Unemployment", and a (Melbourne) telephone Number - 419.3617.
Certainly most Melbourne supporters will recall that this "Stop the City" rally developed into a riot outside the exclusive Melbourne Club, in Collins St. There were several arrests, following damage to cars in the street, and abuse of Club members following invasion of the premises of the Club. It was a pretty nasty business, which the police handled well. We might mention that veteran Maoist (Communist) Mr. Harry Van Moorst, was the "spokesman" at the time for the "Victorian Coalition Against Poverty and Unemployment". Checking the telephone number we found that 419.3617 is the number of the "Centre for Urban Research and Action", of 124 Napier St., Fitzroy (Melbourne inner suburb).
An actionist rang the Centre and asked for some explanatory literature. The very well spoken, courteous official obliged, and mentioned that the "Centre for Urban Research and Action" is an "agency of the Uniting Church". Our noses were twitching by this time. There was only one thing for it we had to have confirmation of this. Another actionist wrote to the General Secretary of the Synod of Victoria, Uniting Church of Australia to have the issue clarified. We are sure that the reverend gentleman is unaware of all the above. We have sighted the General Secretary's reply, and we doubt he is fully aware of the implications of his reply.

We quote in part: "The Centre for Urban Research and Action is officially an Agency of the Synod of the Uniting Church in Australia. The Standing Committee of the Synod in 1977 recognised it as an Agency of the Synod, reporting to the Synod through our Division of Field Services. The Synod also supports the work of the Centre through a substantial grant (our emphasis) from the Synod budget each year. Prior to Church union, the Centre related to the Methodist Church through one of its Circuit Missions." The General Secretary also mentioned that the "Centre" wants a more direct line of communication with the Synod, and wants synod to make a direct appointment to the staff of the Centre. This checks: it would give any Marxist members of the staff of the Centre a more powerful "voice" in Synod, and especially if the appointee were a Marxist. Some of the publications of the "Centre for Urban Research and Action" are "Ethnic Rights, Power & Participation", "But I Wouldn't Want My Wife to Work Here", "The Displaced: A Study of Housing Conflict in Melbourne's Inner City", and many others of a similar type.