MOUNTING CRITICISM OF NO-WIN VIETNAM POLICY

"The Senate yesterday asked President Johnson to launch a campaign in the United Nations to impose international economic sanctions against North Vietnam. Without debate, it approved by 75 to 15 a resolution presented by Senator Harry Byrd (Democrat), who has complained about the alleged inconsistency of United States support for sanctions against break-away Rhodesia." - Australian Associated Press report in most Australian morning papers of October 12.

While the American President is not compelled to do as requested in a Senate resolution moved by one of his own Party, and in fact there is no evidence that President Johnson propose to heed the Senate vote, nevertheless the American Senate has focused attention upon a fundamental aspect of the war in Vietnam.

It is encouraging news that the no-win policy is being subjected to mounting American criticism. Speaking to his resolution in the American Senate, Senator Byrd asked: "How can the United States justify its demand for United Nations sanctions against the peaceful country of Rhodesia when it does nothing in the United Nations to bring sanctions against North Vietnam?"
The Senator went on to say: "The United Nations was designed to help keep the peace. Vietnam, not Rhodesia, is where the action is, where the war is. And Vietnam is where the United Nations should direct its efforts."

We trust that Senator Byrd's logic is brought to the attention of all Members of Parliament at Canberra. A realistic policy of sanctions against North Vietnam would, of course, require that the Soviet Union and Red China be prevented from supplying the economic and military assistance without which the Communist forces in Vietnam could not continue for very long against the Americans and their allies. However, even if President Johnson asked the UN to adopt the sanctions policy recommended by the American Senate, there is no possibility of such a policy being adopted.
But a debate on the policy in the UN would be a most revealing exercise!

It would expose for the whole world to see the hypocrisy of many Governments who describe themselves as anti-Communist. Instead of the American Senators requesting President Johnson to take the question of economic sanctions against North Vietnam to the UN, they should insist that America and her allies start imposing their own sanctions policy. They could adopt the recommended policy of the Senate Sub Committee on Military Preparedness, mentioned in On Target last week, to close the North Vietnamese Port of Haiphong by effective blockade, thus depriving North Vietnam of its main supply line from the Soviet Union and Red China.
Last week's bombing of some of the docks at Haiphong made no contribution whatever towards choking the Communist supply line.

Further criticism of America's no-win policy has recently come from combat service leaders, Colonel Robin Olds, who has flown 152 missions over North Vietnam, and who is credited with downing four Soviet-built MiG fighter jets, said at a press conference in America on October 3 that one way to end the war in Vietnam "is a very simple one in my humble opinion - win it. That's easy. What we're doing is the hard way."

In Chicago on September 30, Lieutenant General Lewis W. Walt, former Marine commander in Vietnam, urged an amphibious invasion of North Vietnam and a frontal attack on enemy artillery, which would cut off thousands of Communist soldiers. "The only way to get rid of the North Vietnamese artillery is to go in and get it, because it's underground."
But the General then admitted that his policy was "subject to political considerations," It is both political and economic considerations, which are forcing the Americans and their allies to fight a war on the terms dictated by their Communist enemies.

The Communists no longer talk of defeating their opponents militarily. But they are confident that so long as the war is fought defensively by their opponents, that in a protracted conflict their propaganda and psychological warfare will eventually force American politicians to accept a compromise peace.

An AAP report from Washington on October 11 states that in a captured analysis of the Vietnam war by the famous General Vo Nguyen Giap, North Vietnam's Minister for Defence, it is stated that America has been forced to fight a "protracted war" in Vietnam and that "this is a big defeat for them."

Only a determined American and Australian public opinion can end the present no-win policy which makes "protracted war" possible.

COMMUNISTS SPONSOR U.S. ANTI-VIETNAM SPEAKER

"Addressing a meeting in the Princess Theatre yesterday, General Hester said the people of North Vietnam - like the American Negroes - were fighting for their independence. He said 'for 300 years Negroes in America have been abused. Now they are beginning to fight for their self-respect and independence. They know they will get nowhere until they do. And the Negro riots, like the Vietnam War, were no picnic.'

Gen. Hester said "There is only one aggressor in Vietnam -the United States." - The Sun - Melbourne, October 9.

General Hester is receiving considerable press, radio and TV publicity during his four weeks tour of Australia. But while there have been some references to the fact that his tour is being Sponsored by the Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament, there has been no general exposure of the fact that the Hester project has been promoted by the Communists. This project is part of the massive "peace" offensive in Australia, and naturally is being well published in the Communist press.
But the principal supporters of this project are the daily press, radio and TV.

Chief organiser for the Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament is Mr. Sam Goldbloom, an expert in "peace" activities since he visited the Soviet Union in 1961 to attend a Soviet Peace Committee meeting. Goldbloom also visited Poland and East Germany. His Congress for International Co-operation and Disarmament organised the 1964 October Peace Congress.

The Australian Attorney-General at that time, Mr. Snedden said in the House of Representatives on September 3, 1964, that "the latest national 'peace' function organised by the Communist influenced "peace" movement in Australia"…was "the creature of the world peace movement", and that "the congress will be concerned not with true peace but with the furtherance of the Soviet Union's policy"

Also helping with the Hester project is the "Queensland Peace Committee", which recently produced a filthy sheet suggesting that Australians would have to protect their women from American soldiers coming to Australia from Vietnam for rest and recreation.

Mrs. Norma Chalmers of the "Queensland Peace Committee" has announced that no less than 20 Queensland organisations would be assisting with the Hester project. She made the significant statement that "There will not be any political party involved. " That statement must have caused a horselaugh amongst the comrades!

We do not know whether General Hester realises that he is being sponsored and exploited by Communist-front organisation in Australia. But a man who can claim that Negro riots, which leave American cities in smoking ruins, are directed towards obtaining Negro "independence", is either a knave or a fool.
From the information we have on General Hester, we would conclude that he is a fool. The Communist conspiracy specialises in exploiting fools.

TEACH-INS SERVE COMMUNIST TACTICS

"A 4000-strong audience and nine hours of speeches at the Monash University's National Teach-In on October 10 confirmed for all to see that the Vietnam issue - and the teach-in form - are as alive in Australia today as ever they have been.....The October 2 teach-in at Monash showed quite plainly that since the last wave of teach-ins nothing has changed in the essentially defensive posture of pro-government spokesmen when it comes to putting their case in a public forum," - The Communist Tribune, October 11.

The teach-in movement is a highly sophisticated form of political warfare. Those who participate in these teach-ins merely provide the Communists with a platform and publicity to help confuse the Australian people. The clash between Mr. Gough Whitlam, leader of the Federal Opposition, and Minister for the Army Mr. Fraser was certainly publicised in the press reports of the teach-in. But also publicised were the views of Monash University student John Price, recently returned from a trip to South Vietnam paid for by funds raised by the organisers of the teach-in.

The organisers of the teach-in got their money's worth. Mr. Price said, "I went to Vietnam believing our commitment was wrong - and I came back feeling even more convinced that the commitment is wrong.

Also publicised by the daily press was Professor C.P. Fitzgerald. Professor of Far Eastern History at the Australian National University. Professor Fitzgerald's views generally get a warm welcome from the Communists.

Some of the statements of visiting US Fulbright scholar, Professor D.A. Provost, were also highlighted, particularly those which suggested that Vietnam could lead to a nuclear conflict. None of the views of the supporters of the Australian involvement in Vietnam received any publicity whatever. And the publicity given to Army Minister Fraser's excellent statement was submerged in the publicity given to the opponents of Australian military support for America in Vietnam. The overall result of the Monash teach-in was a victory for the Communists. That is why the Tribune was so pleased with this event.

REFRESHING REALISM ON COMMON MARKET

"Sir Alexander Downer's blunt warning to Britain of the consequences if it decided to enter Europe received front page treatment in today's newspapers. The Daily Express called the High Commissioner's speech one of unprecedented toughness from a Commonwealth representative. Nobody who reads the speech of Sir Alexander Downer can have any doubts about the price Britain is asked to pay for entering the Common Market. It means cutting Britain off from the immense, exciting growth possibilities of a Commonwealth country like Australia." - The Australian, October 13.

Not only would British entry into the European Economic Community have serious economic implications for Britain; it would be the first step towards surrendering British sovereignty to a super-bureaucracy in Brussels. The drive to force the United Kingdom into the EEC is backed and financed by powerful international financial groups determined to complete the destruction of the British Commonwealth.

In its latest news-letter, the Anti-Common Market League, directed by that great British patriot John Paul, warns that "The government is now hell-bent on securing entry without safeguards, in a panic-stricken effort to appease General de Gaulle, as well as those international monetary forces to which Britain's future has been pawned. In its present mood, no sacrifice will be too great. The sterling area, and the pound's position as a world currency… are two bastions of British strength soon to be surrendered."

At the recent British Labor Parry Conference there was not even any lip service about the Commonwealth. Fabian Socialist Harold Wilson has now taken the mask off and reveals himself as a man determined to wreck Britain and the British Commonwealth. The methods of the pro-Marketers are now completely unscrupulous.

Working on Hitler's tactic of the Big Lie, the Minister in charge of the EEC negotiations Lord Chalfont, has recently said that the British people are solid and enthusiastic "for this venture and application." The truth is that Gallup Polls up until July showed a majority of British people against joining the EEC. It is significant that no Gallup Polls have been published since.

All the evidence indicates that British opinion is further hardening against the EEC project. Sir Alexander Downer has aligned himself with the British people against their wretched defeatist and treacherous politicians. Australians should be proud of their Ambassador in London.

SUPPORT FOR EXPANSION FUND GROWS