Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Christian based service movement warning about threats to rights and freedom irrespective of the label.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke
Flag of the Commonwealth of Australia
 
 
Home blog.alor.org Newtimes Survey The Cross-Roads Library
OnTarget Archives The Social Crediter Archives NewTimes Survey Archives Brighteon Video Channel Veritas Books

On Target

7 April 1967. Thought for the Week: "On the day of resurrection, they will demand of thee an account, not of thy pedigree, but of thy actions."
Sadi Gulistan.

SOUTH AFRICA TO BE 'INVADED BY AMERICA'
(Headline Melbourne Herald March 29)

"Evidence is mounting to show the United States is far advanced with contingency planning to send several divisions to enforce U.N. sanctions against South Africa and Rhodesia if the need arises, the Washington correspondent of Johannesburg's Rand Daily Mail said today."

The report continues quoting the correspondent, Raymond Heard, who said the Defence Department, is known to be teaching about 100 officers Afrikaans, one of South Africa's two official languages. The other is English. He also said that Senator Richard Russell, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee "referred directly to action planned against Southern Africa" when opposing a request by Defence Secretary Robert McNamara for a fleet of fast deployment logistic ships.
The following came from Mr. Eric Butler in the U.S.A. this week.


WILL U.N. DECLARE WAR ON SOUTHERN AFRICA?

"Increasing numbers of Americans are becoming concerned that the ground is being prepared for an American-backed U.N. military action against Rhodesia and South Africa. They fear that a Korean-type "peace" in Vietnam will make available American forces for a U.N. action in Southern Africa.

The following is some of the evidence assembled by those Americans who are fearful that the first steps have already been taken for a military attack on Southern Africa:
"The unprecedented mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia by the U.N. were based on the assertion that Rhodesia constituted a major threat to world peace. Primarily because South Africa and Portugal refuse to impose sanctions, the U.N. action against Rhodesia must fail.
"When it is clear that mandatory sanctions have failed to remove what the U.N. has seriously claimed is a major threat to world peace, the next logical step is military force to crush Rhodesia and those nations, South Africa and Portugal, which are standing with Rhodesia.

"Article 43 of the U.N. Charter states:
'All members of the United Nations agree to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement armed forces, assistance and facilities, including rights of passage.'

"The way was being prepared for a U.N. attack on Southern Africa even before the Rhodesian question was taken to the Security Council by Prime Minister Harold Wilson of Britain. On October 28 of last year the General Assembly of the U.N. voted to take over South West Africa in defiance of the ruling of the World Court that South Africa legally held the mandate over South West Africa. To take over South West Africa against South African military resistance would require a tremendous military force. The U.N. could only obtain this force by calling upon member nations under Article 43 of the U.N. Charter.

"In an alarming statement on October 21 of last year, Senator Richard E. Russell, Chairman of the Armed Forces Committee expressed his fears when he said:
'I rise to express the hope that the United Nations has not embarked upon a course which will bring about another Vietnam in Africa with the United States undertaking practically alone to enforce the political views of the majority of the United Nations...
But, said Senator Russell, 'he fears the worst.'

Senator Russell's statement suggests that he is washing his hands in advance of threatened disaster, indicating that under its special treaty agreement the U.S.A. will have to provide massive military force to help attack Southern Africa if the Security Council orders this, and that American Congressional Representatives are powerless."


THE PRIME MINISTER IN ASIA

"I would hope that Cambodians would increasingly regard Australia as a friend sympathetic and willing to co-operate in furthering the aspirations for peaceful progress of peoples of the South-East Asian region." Mr. Holt in Cambodia. The Age April 4.

To a member of the Australian Government and more especially the Prime Minister, the words "peaceful progress of the peoples of South-East Asian region" must be directed towards those whose policies are to resist and defeat the communist threat. The visit of Mr. Holt to areas such as Cambodia will do much good in this direction if Mr. Holt makes it clear to the various heads of state that Australia really means business.
In Asian politics the rules need to be elastic, especially when you don't know who your friends really are.
The Cambodians accept aid from Russia and China and Cambodia is used as a resting and staging base for North Vietnamese troops going to fight against the Allies in South Vietnam.

Mr. Holt received a cordial reception from the Cambodians who claim that such things do not mean they are pro-Communist. This is a good example of the truth that "politics is the art of the possible. " The Cambodians would be foolish indeed to place their complete faith in either the Australians or the Americans. We trade with the Chinese, and bolster their economy, and both Australians and Americans are following a policy of limited warfare with the Communists which could well lead to a form of neutralism which the Cambodians well know means leaving the Communists in the dominant position.
Without positive assurance in the form of decisive action no one can blame them for playing the two against the middle.

No doubt Prince Sihanouk asked Mr. Holt if there was any chance of Australia and America ever taking the gloves off against the Communists. Should this happen Cambodian "neutralism" would vanish overnight.


MR. MCNAMARA AIDS THE COMMUNISTS

"Mr. McNamara told a press conference in Washington yesterday the MIG bases had been left off the target list in North Vietnam because of the U.S. desire to avoid widening the war, to seek limited political objectives in Vietnam, and save the lives of U.S. pilots." The Age (Melbourne) April 5.

The refusal of the no-win political administrators in Washington to let their fighting men get on with the job of defeating the enemy is placing them under increasing fire. Mr. Robert McNamara has for a long time played a key role in the policy of weakening America and being nice to the Communists. Recent news has highlighted the fact that American plane losses hardly balance production. McNamara initiated the policy of disarmament some years ago. This policy caused his department to sell bombs in 1964 to Germany of $1.70 each and later re-buy them for $21. 00.

His policy of decreasing steadily American production of essential up to date equipment for the armed sources has paralleled his policy of withdrawing American bases from Strategic points. His present policy in Vietnam complements his stand against declaring war. According to a statement given to the Senate Armed Services Appropriations Committee, McNamara said
"To do so would add a new psychological element to the international situation... "

We couldn't agree more. It would mean that the Americans - and Australia would be committed to the policy of "there is no substitute for victory." It was this policy, which the American administrators of the time stopped MacArthur from pursuing in Korea, and by doing so prepared the ground for the present conflict in Vietnam.
One of the key men to enforce this policy on MacArthur was Dean Rusk, the present American Secretary of State, and key policy maker in Vietnam. The old Australianism "you can't win" seems appropriate.


TERRORISTS OFFER ADEN TO RUSSIAN AS A BASE

"Russia has been promised the use of Aden as a naval and air base after South Arabia becomes independent if Moscow supports the Egyptian-backed Front for the Liberation of Occupied Southern Yemen (Flosy) in its attempts to seize power." The Australian March 31.

The vultures are hovering ready to devour the carcass, and Britain, once proud Great Britain the protector of the weak, the purveyor of law and justice to the four corners of the earth, is to deliver the carcass in 1968. And so the props are being prepared for the final decimation of Africa as a whole, and especially the white minority in the south.

Look at the map. With direct access to the Mediterranean, control of the Red Sea, add to these the wonderful facilities of the base at Aden with the Sudan, Ethiopia and Tanzania already heavily infiltrated and relying on aid from the Chinese or U.S.S.R. and the stage is set for the final moves against Rhodesia, South Africa, Angola and Mozambique.
That is if the other part of the Communist apparatus, the U.N. does not succeed first.


ARCHBISHOP RAMSEY ON BOMBING OF NORTH VIETNAM

"The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey said last night he would like to see the United States take the initiative in Vietnam and stop bombing. He said 'we deplore the bombing, we also deplore the cruel things done on the other side, but there has to be an initiative, there has to be a breakthrough. I join with those who long to see America take the initiative by stopping the bombing'." The Australian March 31.

"Those", of course, would include every communist in the world from Ho himself downward, every "liberal" from Bobbie Kennedy through Senator Fulbright down to Bertrand Russell and hosts of fellow travelers in all the countries of the West. All men of goodwill would, of course, like to see an end to the horrors of the Vietnam war, to napalm, to bombs, to maimed women and children, to the corruption of entire populations, to its destructiveness and to the cost to all the parties involved in men and money. But anyone who could seriously describe a voluntary cessation of bombing by the U.S.A. as "taking the initiative" cannot be regarded as other than a propagandist for the North Vietnamese aggressor.
Such action would, in truth, lose the initiative.

The whole thing is puzzling. Dr. Ramsey cannot be averse to U.S. action by reason of a general or theological repugnance to war and all that it entails, for was he not among the most vocal advocate of the use of force against Rhodesia following UDI? And, whatever one's views of the rights or wrongs of the Rhodesian government not even Dr. Ramsey whose blindness to the realities of contemporary history seems monumental, could accuse Rhodesians of loosing guerilla warfare accompanied by the most horrible and deliberate atrocities against his own people for the greater glory of communism.
Surely there is enough confusion in the minds of Christians now without leaders such as Mr. Ramsey throwing his weight behind a force of evil which makes no secret of its belief that the mind of Christ is of first repugnance to its own belief.


DR. BANDA WITH MORE WISDOM

"President Banda urged a start in the dialogue between the leaders of South Africa and those of the rest of Africa yesterday." The policy of boycotts and shouts and the diplomacy of bluff and bluster have failed. " London Daily Telegraph report from The Australian, March 31.

President Banda of Malawi agreed with President Nyerere of Tanzania that Africa was in a mess. He said,
"African leaders themselves had upset the applecart. They were wasting time on beating the dead horse of imperialism and colonialism when the real problems were economic viability, political instability in African States and disunity among African leaders.
They are signs that it is occurring to some African leaders that they are merely being used for a purpose which does not include the welfare of themselves or their people."


ON TARGET BULLETIN
TARGET FOR THE WEEK : AMERICA : UNO : SOUTHERN AFRICA

The news contained in our first item this week is undoubtedly of the greatest significance, even if the first reaction is one of disbelief that such policy could be seriously contemplated by responsible men in the United States of America. We are now in the position to profit from the work we have done previously in regard to the question of force being used against Rhodesia and South Africa. Many of you will have on your files letters from members of parliament, including the cabinet stating that they are opposed to the use of force against Rhodesia. Those who have such letters should write again to the individual concerned asking in the light of present information will they make it clear to the Australian people that they can never condone any policy, initiated by the U.N., of force being used against Rhodesia, under any pretext.

There is little doubt that Mr. Hasluck will refer to the commitment of Australia as a member of the U.N. to obey any resolution passed by the Security Council,
under Article 25, "The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
This article would be binding on Australia after the Security Council had arrived at a decision in regard to Article 39, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

This battle will undoubtedly be the most crucial we have undertaken.

Every V.P.A. should arm themselves with a copy of the U.N. Charter and comb it for any inconsistencies of policy initiated against Southern Africa. Past policies of the U.N which have condoned force as in the case of Katanga while ignoring the plight of the Hungarians and Tibetans should be re-examined with a view towards demonstrating how the U.N. is only being used as an instrument against those countries, which stand in the path of Communist expansion.
It should be our objective to encourage the party politician to take a stand on the basis of personal morality, for in the final analysis this is the only hope in this battle.


SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION : LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Local government is the starting point in our whole system of government, it is by far the most important branch of government if we accept the principle that the prime purpose of government is to represent the policies of the individual person and protect him from the designs of those who would exploit their fellow in some way or another.

In Victoria a State election is about to take place and it is therefore an opportune time to consider the proper relationship between the States and Federal Government. If we are to ever control the excesses of the central government it will undoubtedly be when we have injected new life into the Local and State branches of the Government system. To this end the following questionnaire is being sent out by Victorian V.P.A.'s and individual actionists to all candidates in their particular electorates.

Question 1. Would you be prepared during the election to advocate the return to the States of sovereign financial power enabling the States to control their own policies in regard to Education, Health, Roads, Police, etc?

Question 2. Would you be prepared also through the election campaign to advocate that of the State Treasury? This being commensurate with a readjustment of Federal-State financial relationships.

Question 3. Would you agree it is time the Senate was restored to its original function as watchdog of State interests? If so, would you agree to take part in a statewide convention before the next Federal elections, such a convention to be composed of State Parliamentarians and Councilors of all shire and cities in Victoria, having as its objective the nomination of candidates for the Senate at the next Federal election?

It should be obvious to the student the intention behind this programme. This is to attack the Federal octopus by making representation in that body directly responsible for solving the problems of local government. By so doing an organic line of growth would be established between the individual electing his local shire councilor or alderman, to the individual representing his interests in the Federal sphere.

QUESTION: Criticisms and suggestions welcomed!


© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159