ROUGH ROAD AHEAD IN 1966

The plight of the world is such that it is unrealistic, and cowardly, to suggest that the road ahead for mankind in 1966 is going to be other than intensely difficult and dangerous. 1965 saw encouraging signs from many parts of the world of the development of effective work against the forces of world revolution. The highlight was the stand taken by Mr. Ian Smith's Government in Rhodesia. This stand has acted as a type of catalyst, making fundamental issues much clearer, forcing people everywhere to take definite sides on these issues, and producing an open alignment of the international power groups either promoting or aiding revolutionary policies.
The apparent determination, of the Johnson Administration to take a firm stand against Communist strategy in South-East Asia, also resulted in many people becoming more aware of the deeper realities of the world situation.

There was a greater growth and more cohesion amongst conservative and anti-Communist groups throughout the world. However, the forces of world revolution, sustained by a momentum developed over a long period of time, and assisted by a poison, which has deeply penetrated into all strata of society, are still clearly in the ascendancy. They are not going to be easily beaten back. There is much fighting to be done at all levels - political, economic, psychological, philosophical and military - in the struggle ahead.

1966 will be a year of the testing of wills and faiths. This News Letter is produced for those prepared to submit themselves to the heat of the battle. We welcome to our ranks the many new readers receiving "On Target" as a result of our Christmas Gift subscription scheme and invite them to assist in the advance of our work. We urge all readers to participate in the activities of The Australian League of Rights.

DISTURBING QUESTIONS ON JOHNSON'S "PEACE OFFENSIVE"

American experts on International Communism are not impressed by President Johnson's much-publicised "peace offensive" on Vietnam. These are some of the disturbing questions being asked: Does Mr. Averell Harriman, a man with a long record of sellouts to Communism, really believe that he convinced the Communist leaders of "neutral" Yugoslavia of anything - except, of course, that the U.S.A. would settle for the "neutralisation" of South Vietnam? Why was it necessary for the notorious Mr. "Soapy" Williams to go begging to every tin-pot African nation asking that they try to influence Ho Chi Minh? If Mr. Arthur Goldberg, US Ambassador at the UN really meant what he said, that the "peace mission" was to "make sure..... that there is no misunderstanding about positions", why was it necessary to go chasing all over the world when the US Ambassador in Warsaw, Poland, can meet a representative of the Peking Government any time this is desired?
If it is felt that a direct approach to the Moscow and Peking Communist criminals is not sufficient to make America's position clear about Vietnam, then surely an approach could have been made to Hanoi through Ho Chi Minh's representatives in any of the Communist capital cities of the world?

Concerned Americans point out that the total result of the " peace offensive" is to lower American prestige by creating the impression that it was necessary to go around the world begging small States to help America obtain "peace"; and that the North Vietnamese have been further encouraged to believe that the American policy makers prefer "peace" to victory.

While President Johnson's "peace" representatives have been conferring with "statesmen" like Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya, and trying to persuade the American people that the Moscow branch of the Communist conspiracy is a "moderate" influence, the Kremlin sent its most diabolical conspirator, Shelepin, to Hanoi. At present Shelepin is known officially as the Director of Organisation and Personnel of the Communist Party of the USSR. But he was a former Director of the "Department of Blood-Wet Affairs", an organization, which specialises in international murders. We can well imagine the type of "peace" Shelepin is advising Ho Chi Mink to accept.
A "neutralised" South Vietnam issues good as a Communist South Vietnam. Is this what Americans and Australians - are dying in Vietnam for?

After twelve months of increasingly bitter ground fighting, it is now admitted that little real progress has been made to defeat the Communists. Real victory calls for the effective bombing of the vital North Vietnamese port of Haiphong and the North Vietnamese industrial complex. Until action of this type is initiated, there are growing fears in the USA, and elsewhere, that the Johnson "peace offensive" could prove to be the cover for another Korean type of sellout to International Communism.

AUSTRALIA MUST NOT RETREAT IN THE NORTH

The concern of the members of the New Guinea House of Assembly Select Committee on Constitutional Development can be readily understood. Their concern is about the lack of any strong declaration of policy by the Australian Government with reference to the future of Papua-New Guinea.
Voices of opinion in the Territory are mixed. Some call for independence immediately, others would like the Territory to become a seventh State, while others wish to stay as they are. But most have one desire in common: the continuance of material aid from Australia.

As the Territories are dependent upon Australia for their viability, and Australia is dependent upon its sovereignty over them for its very security, in the military sense, one realistic policy alone is possible: Australia must declare in the strongest terms its intention to maintain its possessions and interests in Papua- New Guinea. Australians would be foolish to overlook the fact that only Lady Luck saved them from sharing a common border with an openly-declared Communist power. Had the recent Communist coup in Indonesia succeeded - it was only a fluke that it didn't - there would by now have been Red soldiers on the border in New Guinea. Perhaps now, too late, we realise the price we are to pay for our moral cowardice when we deserted the Dutch at the time of the West New Guinea crisis. We would do well to recall the words of the Dutch Foreign Minister, Dr. Joseph Luns, who told us that we would regret our cowardly complacency, and that forces inimical to Australia would be emboldened by our timidity. How right Dr. Luns was, how stupid we were! We must not let ourselves be browbeaten again. No retreat from our North.

CONTRASTS IN AFRICA

Comment should hardly be necessary on how developments in Nigeria, one of the earliest of the "newly-emerged" African nations, and the host nation for the recent Commonwealth Conference convened to discuss how best to destroy the "Fascist" Smith Government in Rhodesia, highlight the tragic plight of the world. The very Nigerian Prime Minister concerned about "constitutional" government in Rhodesia had only recently won an election during which riots took place, ballots were rigged, and people murdered. And shortly after the Conference he was kidnapped and Ministers murdered. Civil war continues.

A report from Brussels published on January 14, states, "The Watusi tribe in the African kingdom of Brundi is systematically butchering Bahutu tribal leaders in atrocities that parallel the Congo." The report states that 32 Bahutu leaders goaled for no other crime than their tribal background, were dragged into the forest, tied to trees and burned alive. The International Communism of Jurists has confirmed the atrocities.

While bloodshed and chaos continues in the "independent" African nations, law and order continues in Rhodesia in spite of international economic warfare against the Smith Government. It is not surprising that the Rhodesian natives, learning of what is happening to their North, are overwhelmingly behind Mr. Ian Smith and his policy of non-surrender to terrorist pressures.

RHODESIA AND INTERNATIONAL BRAINWASHING

Anyone who doubts the reality of international brainwashing, should study the considered reports on the Rhodesian situation by the many people, including Members of all British political parties, who have been visiting the country. One of the visitors, Mr. R. T. Paget, is a Member of Mr. Harold Wilson's own party. Mr. Paget bluntly said after his visit that it was nonsense for British reports to keep on insisting that economic sanctions would bring down the Smith Government by March. Mr. P. Bessell, a Member of the British Liberal Party, who had a long talk with Mr. Smith, said "I think Mr. Smith realises the potential dangers of this situation and he is facing them in a realistic, practical manner." Mr. Bessell said that he saw no signs of disquiet or anxiety in Rhodesia, "nothing remotely like a feeling of crisis."

A leading Nigerian editor, whose friends said that he was extremely "brave" to visit Rhodesia, and who admits that he was concerned about how he would be received in Salisbury, said later that he experienced one surprise after another. He was surprised that he could readily enter the country, that he could stay at a first class hotel in Salisbury and eat with Europeans, and that there was obviously no disorder anywhere. The Nigerian admitted that he had changed many of his opinions about Rhodesia. If he has survived the bloodletting Nigeria, we would suggest that this African editor might be invited to Canberra to give the politicians, particularly the Left-wing ones, his impressions on the real situation in Rhodesia.