DR. J. CAIRNS, MP. ON VIETNAM NOW

Following his recent visit to South-East Asia, Labor Member Dr. Jim Cairns has shifted his ground on the Vietnam issue to the point where he is prepared to concede that military victory is possible against the Communists. But he persistently continues to advance his central thesis that there is a "revolutionary change" in Asia, which cannot be halted by military force. And that Australia should urge upon the USA the necessity to attempt negotiations.

As Mr. Cairns is the most competent of those Australian politicians opposing the Australian military stand in Vietnam, it is essential that his statements be carefully studied so that their real significance may be understood.
Speaking at Canberra on Tuesday evening of this week (August 30) Dr. Cairns first attempted to create fear by stating that China could not afford to accept the defeat of the Viet Cong and North Vietnam. He said:
"It seems probable that she will not accept this result anymore than she would accept in 1951-1952, when she was much weaker, the defeat of North Korea. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why China should wait that long. I would think it is probable that the defeat of communism in Vietnam could cause China to take far stronger action in North Vietnam, Laos and Thailand than she would otherwise do."

This statement by Dr. Cairns is, at least by implication, an admission that Communist China is a power base from which the offensive in Vietnam is being directed and assisted. The essence of his view is that the risk of defeating communism in Vietnam is too great; that the Chinese Communists will not tolerate this. This is typical of the defeatism, which has so paralyzed the Western nations, as they have consistently refused to face the stark truth that they are being progressively blackmailed by the Communist enemy.
Dr. Cairns, and those who advance his point of view are assisting with this blackmailing.

Instead of facing the truth that the Red Chinese are fighting the Americans, Australians and New Zealanders by proxy in Vietnam, and that only a policy of strength is going to defeat the Chinese strategy for Asia, many Australians will be tempted to listen to the Cairns siren call urging that the risk of major confrontation with China should be avoided by a negotiated settlement in Vietnam.
Dr. Cairns calls for an end to bombing of North Vietnam as a necessary preliminary for negotiations.
The Communists would be delighted to have a respite from military pressure, thus enabling them to build up their forces and supplies.

Dr. Cairns also said it would have to be made clear that the Communist National Liberation Front had "to have a share of power in South Vietnam."
The acceptance of the Communists into any coalition Government in South Vietnam would be a major victory for the Communists.

The future of Australia may depend to a very great extent upon how strongly Australians reject the Cairns foreign policy at the coming Federal Elections.

RHODESIA STANDS FIRM AGAINST REVOLUTIONARIES

Mr. Harold Wilson now concedes that his economic war against Rhodesia has failed. All around the world the voices of revolution are now demanding that stronger action must be taken to topple the Smith Government. While the prospect of military force cannot be discounted, it is extremely unlikely that the stage has yet been reached where it would be possible to justify such an extreme policy, one that would plunge the whole of Southern Africa into war and destruction.
Mr. Harold Holt, Australian Prime Minister, has shown wisdom and reflected the attitude of the great majority of Australians by his firm statement that his Government would not support the use of force against Rhodesia.
The New Zealand Government has also made it clear that it rejects force.

The Australian and New Zealand stand will have a decisive effect on the Prime Ministers' Conference in London next week. It will force the African demagogues like Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia to decide whether or not they are prepared to continue in the Commonwealth. If an explosion takes place, Zambia could openly move under increasing Communist influence.
Recent reports state that the Zambian economy is rapidly deteriorating, with a steady flow of Europeans leaving the country.
Mr. Harold Wilson is now experiencing the follow of his support for the revolutionary movement against Rhodesia. He may even find that he will lose Britain's precious copper supplies from Zambia.

While the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London grapple with the impossible task of agreeing on a policy, which might defeat Rhodesia, the Rhodesian Government is preparing itself for the next stage of the struggle, during which they envisage an intensified effort to encourage terrorist and revolutionary activities inside Rhodesia, Zambia being the main base for these activities. The Government has wisely moved to strengthen its security legislation.
Mr. Harold Wilson has used this as an excuse to break off the talks of British officials with Rhodesian officials. He hypocritically states that no further talks could continue in the face of this inflammatory action by the Rhodesians.

The following is a sample of the revolutionary propaganda being broadcast by the Zambian Broadcasting Commission:
"Take your bows, your axe, your spear and smash that (the Rhodesian) government. If blood spills, even if blood is shed, that government must be broken."

Africans in Rhodesia were also urged to "kill many cattle. Take the cattle. If you are not able to take them, hamstrung them."
But the British Government attempts to wash its hands of this type of revolutionary propaganda.

The close alliance between the BBC and the ZBC is played down. But Mr., Wilson cannot play down the fact that the Director of the Zambian Broadcasting Commission is a British Civil Servant, Mr. Michael Wittemaster, who is seconded to the Zambian Government.

Western Civilization's front line against Communist strategy on the African continent is being firmly held because the Rhodesian Government, backed by a united people, both European and African, is demonstrating the sheer will to hold on. It is one of the great miracles of an era when it is widely accepted that no small group can stand in the way of "inevitable trends".

THE TRUTH ABOUT SALISBURY'S UNIVERSITY COLLEGE

Anti-Rhodesian propagandists have made much of the fact that the Rhodesian Government had deported nine lecturers from the Salisbury University College. This act has been publicised as further evidence of the "police state" conditions now allegedly existing in Rhodesia. The truth about the activities at the University, leading to the deporting of some of the lecturers, is rather different.

Writing in the August issue of "Rhodesia and World Report", Dr. Olive Robertson, MBE. MB. ChB. a member of the College Council Executive Committee since 1962 provides a background picture of how the agents of revolution attempted to use the University to help defeat the Smith Government. Dr. Robertson refers to the significant fact that the revolutionary activities at the University were confined to the Faculty of Social Studies.
At the time of the deportment of the nine lecturers, Prime Minister Ian Smith said that some of their activities would "make your hair curl". Some of the details have been provided concerning the activities of the nine non-Rhodesian lecturers. They deliberately attempted to engineer a break down of law and order at the University so that the institution would have to be closed and an excuse for intervention by the British Government. These lecturers had encouraged, not only subversion and Communism, but also immorality on the campus. A number of abortions followed as a result of this immorality. Rhodesian authorities felt the country could do without this type of "academic freedom".

AUSTRALIA NOT AT APARTHEID SEMINAR

The Australian Government is to be congratulated on its rejection of an invitation to attend a UN sponsored Seminar on apartheid, which began in Brazil on August 25. We are, however, a little sick of the two-faced explanation given by the Department of External Affairs justifying this decision. Refusal to participate in a Communist-inspired attack on the attempt by South African to peacefully resolve its local race problem, does not need to be evasively defended. Many of those at the Seminar in Brazil came from countries where the vilest forms of human tyranny operate.

It would be instructive to have a Seminar on the question of whether there is one place in Africa where "majority rule" and "one-man-one-vote" operates to the benefit of the African people.

THE SIGNIFICANT CASE OF CAPTAIN BENSON, MP

THESE DATES CONCERN YOU

ON TARGET BULLETIN
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : Trade Realities

Many people readily concede that it is immoral to trade with an enemy like Red China. But some react by saying in effect, "But while I deplore this policy of trading with the enemy, it does appear to be inevitable. How would our economy survive if we did not have large export markets similar to the one Red China provides for us?"
This attitude is, unfortunately, merely a reflection of the carefully-fostered economic dogma that a nation becomes wealthy through exporting.

Looked at realistically, every bag of wheat sent out of Australia is a loss of production - unless there is obtained something of value in exchange for the wheat. It is also important that the production imported in exchange should be obtained within a reasonable period of exporting the wheat. True trade between two national units should be an exchange of genuine surpluses at the same rate. But economic dogma as taught by Socialist economists, insists that a country only obtains prosperity by exporting more than it imports, thus obtaining a "favourable balance of trade."
Now it does appear that such a policy does produce prosperity.

Let us recall the war years. Before the war the Australian economy was still affected by the restrictive financial policies introduced during the Great Depression. There were hundreds of thousands of unemployed. All this changed with the war. Startling though it appears to many when first mentioned, Australia in fact had a magnificent "balance of trade" during the war - large quantities of production in the form of shells, etc, were "given" to the enemy. The result was comparative prosperity. The reason? New financial credits were created through the banking system, starting with the Central Reserve Bank, to finance this new type of "export" drive.

The money supply of the nation was increased, which meant that people could buy the production not exported. In other words, new credits distributed through the community against war production, were used to buy the consumer production available.

It is important to grasp that when Australia exports wheat to China, for example, it does not import yen in exchange. Australia does not import any money at all from any other country. If Red China is paying for Australian wheat with credits, which Australia can use to buy the production of other nations, then Red China must have obtained these credits either by exports, or by having them loaned to her.

The basic question is: Can Australians ensure that they have sufficient purchasing power to buy their own production without virtually giving some of it away to the Communist enemy?

If the Communist Empire sank beneath the sea tomorrow, it is inconceivable that the non-Communist world, with its vast resources, would be able to change its financial and economic policies to make use of these resources.