RE-ARRANGING THE DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC

by David Thompson
No changes in Liberal Party leadership can conceal the fact that this is a political party adrift from its roots, uncertain of what it believes, and divided about the future. Although undecided as we go to press, Dr. Hewson's fate is quite inevitable. For months his colleagues have appealed for loyalty to the leadership, appealing for a return to the main priority - defeating Labor, and "winning power at the next election". But "winning power" for what? Power is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. What would the Liberals do with "power"? The truth is, they don't know, and this is at the heart of the malaise of the Liberal Party, now in a state of terminal decay.

The type of person now in the ascendancy in the Liberal Party is isolated from the aspirations of those they rely upon for "power". The economists, lawyers, bankers, accountants, etc., dominating modern Liberal politics have almost completely lost touch with the "middle Australia" so assiduously courted by Menzies - the myriad of small businessmen, be they manufacturers, retailers, farmers, graziers, miners, teachers, or truck drivers, let alone housewives, the unemployed and the other disadvantaged.

For most struggling Australians, there is little point exchanging Dr. Hewson (an economist) for Mr. Downer (an economist) or Mr. Costello (a lawyer). It is quite obvious that there is a need for lawyers, bankers, accountants and perhaps even economists (to stretch a point), but these are increasingly regarded as generously-paid and remote from common experiences of hard pressed Australians. In short, they are typical of the modern politician: more media image than genuine substance, superficial integrity, and exchangeable principles, equally at home in either A.L.P. or Liberal Party.

THE WRONG ROAD

The only possible salvation for the Liberal Party is a complete and genuine change in policy. Following the departure of Menzies in 1966, the Party has drifted under the leadership of Holt, Gorton, McMahon and Snedden. The complete revolution of the Whitlam years paved the way for the massive Parliamentary majority exercised by Mr. Fraser (a grazier). "This was an unparallelled opportunity for a complete rejection of Whitlam's Fabian-socialist programme, and a return to the genuine interests of grassroots Australia.

In 1976, the League of Rights issued a leaflet entitled Fraser Government On The Road To Disaster, predicting that the failure to seize the opportunity to reverse disastrous policies would lead to the Fraser Government going down in history as a disaster. Many of those who bitterly rejected this prediction have since had occasion to change their minds. The last opportunity that the Liberals had to return to reality was during Mr. John Howard's leadership from 1986-89. John Howard did at least attempt to return to the basic values upon which the Party was built, but was derided as "looking backwards". He even made the last serious attempt to review immigration policy, which his own Parliamentary colleagues failed to support. Any electoral victory for the Liberals, with their present pale imitation of A.L.P. policy, will simply consolidate the disasters of Mr. Fraser. In short, "It is useless running faster, if you are on the wrong road...." It is useless gaining "power" to pursue the wrong policies.

BACK TO BASICS

The most basic social and economic unit in Australia is still the traditional family, heterosexual parents caring for children. Lip service to "family values" without financial and economic assistance to prevent families disintegrating is the most basic betrayal available to the Liberals. Is there any hope for the family business, or the family farm? Is there any chance of a reasonable standard of living for a single-income family, where mothers are economically free to be mothers? Is there any hope of fulfilling the dream of home ownership, stability and security through personal exertion? Is there any answer to massive foreign debt, and the perception that foreigners control our industry, real estate, even our governments? Is there any answer to the massive instabilities generated by rapid cultural and racial changes, through the policies of multiculturalism? These are the questions that the Liberals must answer, and answer convincingly.

Perhaps the most serious question the 'conservative' parties must answer is that of the centralisation of power. The Commonwealth - "Canberra" - is a cancer bleeding the nation to death in both moral and financial terms. Australia is being governed from Canberra, rather than Australians from Marble Bar, Charters Towers, Bourke, Burnie or Mildura sending representatives to Canberra to get results.

Do Alexander Downer or Peter Costello have answers to these questions? There is little evidence that they do. Of the two, Mr. Costello would appear to us to be a better choice, with a desire to assist the "battler" as when defending Dollar Sweets from Union persecution, but it will take much more than this. The Downer pedigree is impressive, but the man has so far failed to match the pedigree. Unlike his father, Downer is strongly anti-League, was weak on the Mabo issue, and appears to be weak on the monarchy, State's rights, social issues such as multiculturalism and the radical women's movement.

John Hewson's last plaintive call was for "policies of inclusion", to make the Party all things to all people. Rather than recovering "middle Australia", this meant attempting to include fringe groups, such as ethnic minorities, and sexual deviants at the expense of traditional Australians and their values. The final, faint hope for the Liberal Party is a thorough return to basics, of which there is little evidence, rather than running faster on the wrong road.

RWANDA EXPOSES NEW WORLD ORDER

The United Nations appeal to countries like Australia and New Zealand to send troops for peacekeeping duties in Rwanda has again highlighted the doubtful role of U.N. forces. What would such forces be expected to do in Rwanda? What has been achieved in Bosnia or Somalia? Any study of the deployment of United Nations troops provides a staggering example of bureaucratic ineptitude. A total of more than 70,000 peacekeeping troops from 70 countries are already serving in 17 United Nations missions across the world. But the deployment of the New World Order's international police force has done little to either prevent or stop existing conflicts costing hundreds of thousands of lives. What can a contribution of a further 400 Australian troops achieve?

Present U.N. troop deployments include that of its Cyprus forces, in excess of 1,000 troops since 1964, at an annual cost of $47 million. Peacekeeping forces have been in place on Israel's borders since 1948, having been boosted in 1974, and costing in excess of $60 million per year. Other troops are stationed in Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, India, Pakistan, El Salvador, Haiti, the former Yugoslavia, Georgia in Eastern Europe, Western Sahara, Liberia, Angola, Mozambique, Somalia and Rwanda. In some cases, such as Cyprus, the U.N. presence has been so rigidly maintained that the uneasy stalemate that has resulted has become an alternative to genuine peaceful settlement. In effect, it has institutionalised the instability and uncertainty.

THE RWANDAN NIGHTMARE

Even the United Nations has no idea of how the total chaos in Rwanda (or Burundi) can be reversed. The best that can be achieved is to provide aid to displaced and starving survivors. While dealing with the horrible effects of the conflict is important, this would be more efficiently dealt with by private aid agencies, with the support of governments prepared to take part. The causes of the massacres are a different matter, and stem from racial, tribal and cultural differences.

It is ironic that many of the Liberal bureaucrats staffing the U.N. passionately believe in "human rights" and "equality" as the basis for a form of multiculturalism that does not exist anywhere. There can be no answer to the Rwandan crisis without recognition that the two main racial groups, the Tutsi and the Hutu, are bitter enemies. The Tutsi (formerly known as the Watusi), which make up 10 percent of the population, are a pastoral people who migrated to the region 200 years ago from the Ethiopian highlands. They are not Negro, but from the Caucasian racial group. Tall, proud and able people, they managed to impose a feudal system upon the Hutu, who are short, and purely Negro - Bantu.

The Tutsi regard the Hutu as racially inferior, and of low intelligence. The governing Hutu have a bitter hatred of the lordly Tutsi. Such bitterness produces regular bloodlettings of the sort recently highlighted by television cameras from the West. What is the West's answer? The politically correct attempt to make differing cultural groups live together in so many Western countries leads to almost instant disaster in Africa. Can the United Nations produce any answer to this, except to separate the two groups? But this is apartheid!

THE RUSSIAN MONARCHY

Recent demonstrations in the Red Square of Moscow appeal for the restoration of the Russian throne. The largest rally demanding that the Monarchy be returned, for decades, consisted of unusual numbers of young Russians born long after the Communists murdered Czar Nicholas II. The Christian Revival Group in Russia was strongly represented, and a spokesman was reported as saying that the re-establishment of the Orthodox Monarchy was "the only way to save the Russian people".

With the return to Russia of Solzhenitsyn next week, the cause of the monarchy may receive a significant boost. As Solzenhenitsyn stresses in his major essay, Rebuilding Russia, the monarchy could have a central part to play, in any successful translation from totalitarianism to representative government. (Rebuilding Russia - $15.00 posted, from all League book services)

TEACH NEWCOMERS TO AUSTRALIA OUR VALUES

from The Age (Melbourne), April 11th
The letter (30/3) from eight academics was typical of the thinking of people from our universities, who seem more and more to be separated from the real world. "There is no doubt that Australia has become a multicultural society and the R.S.L's. views on this point are well known. However, multiculturalism, far from uniting all the diverse groups, is dividing this country as it has never been divided before. "I fail to see why Australians have to bend over backwards to accommodate the views of new arrivals at the expense of our own values and traditions.

"What the academics and multiculturalists seem to miss out on is that what we should be doing to Australia's newcomers is teaching them something about this country and its traditions, not encouraging them to carry on with their former country's traditions, ways and animosities. "The R.S.L. would like to see the Government embark on a program to teach new arrivals the backbone traditions of Australia: the constitutional monarchy, the Westminster system of Parliament, the flag, the National Anthem - in all, what has made this country great and what will continue to make it greater." (Bruce Ruxton, State President, Victorian Branch, Returned Services League of Australia)

CONVENTION ON DESERTIFICATION

from The Maryborough District Advertiser (Vic.), April 12th
When Communism collapsed in the old Soviet Union an audible sigh of relief went up throughout the Western Democratic world, 'Communism is dead', it said. It was, however, a big con job. Communism/Socialism is alive and well. "The basic tenet of Communism is that big is better. According to their doctrine, the logical repository of responsibility is not the individual but the 'government'. It involves a usurpation of power from the citizen to local government, from local government to regional government (yet to be established in Australia, but they're working on it); from regional government to State government; and from State government to Federal government. Then from Federal government to part global 'common markets', and from there to World Government - set up in some place as remote from the scene of Oz-action as Brussels, Geneva, or New York.

"The United Nations exists as an embryo World Government. It has long been shown to be impotent as a peacekeeper, but it remains in existence pending the transfer of more and more powers from sycophants like Australia. "Right down the echelon 'useful innocents' (Lenin's expression) under various banners are doing the work of the communists by centralising power. Here in Victoria it is being done by the Kennett Government under the guise of 'council amalgamations'. The Keating Government is doing its bit in such ways as Asianising the economy and misusing the External Affairs Powers.

"However, one of the most sinister developments of recent times is the Convention on Desertification, a product of the U.N., designed to accelerate the above mentioned centralisation of power. "In Oz, any regulation of land use deemed necessary is done by State governments and, through the town planning system, Local Government. This Convention, if ratified (it is already being considered by the Federal Government), will give the Commonwealth the right to override the States through the External Affairs Power, already abused in the matter of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania and later issues.

"According to N.S.W. Farmers' Lands Executive Officer, Fred Goldsen, the new Treaty could give Canberra bureaucrats control over crop types, the number and type of stock permitted, and even fencing techniques. The implications for farmers are enormous. "Does Mr. Reid, M.H.R., know of the existence of such a far-reaching proposal? He should be asked why Australia would want to sign such an agreement. Our State members, too, Mr. Elder, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. deFegely et al, should be alerted to this further breach of trust by our Federal Government." (Ron Fischer, Talbot, Victoria)