THE CHINA FACTOR

by Eric D. Butler
If media reports are correct, former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke is a man who thought ahead to the time when he would no longer be Prime Minister. It appears that he has extensive business interests associated with China. Presumably he quickly got over his tearful TV performance at the time of the Tiananmen massacre. But so have all Western leaders as they desperately seek to help solve their own domestic problems by seeking increased exports into Communist China.

The Chinese Ambassador for Taiwan to South Africa, Mr. Lee, in discussing world affairs with me back in the late 1960's, observed, "history is a very long business." C.H. Douglas was one of those who long before the Second World War foresaw the day when Asia would become a major factor in world politics. Zionist leaders certainly take the long view of history and were among the first to grasp the growing significance of China in the world drama. Long time friend of the Zionist movement and influenced by its messianic concepts, Bob Hawke obviously knew what was planned for the future.

It should be recalled that it was Communist China, not Japan, which was the main interest for Hawke when elected in 1983. He came back from China with glowing reports of how Australia could benefit from joint enterprises with China. Hawke was merely following a pattern already established by the International Bankers.
It was Dr. Henry Kissinger who, after a visit to Zionist Israel, persuaded President Nixon that the time had come to establish diplomatic relations with China. David Rockefeller was ready to establish his Chase National Bank in China, issuing one of the most incredible eulogies of a Communist regime, which had massacred tens of millions. Chairman Mao was lauded as one of the greatest leaders of all time.

Prime Minister Gough Whitlam lost no time in joining the act, quickly making his way to China to meet the mass killer Mao along with fawning Communist officials. Whitlam sought to create the myth of some type of special relationship between Australia and Communist China. As all "old China hands" know, Westerners have the greatest difficulty in understanding Oriental thinking. It is not surprising therefore that Gough Whitlam and those who came after him have been deluded by the China factor.

It was during the Whitlam era that the Chinese induced the Australian Government to give it monopoly shipping rights for the Australia-China iron ore business, along with huge discounts. Every student of the statements of international bankers and their tame economists is aware of the importance attached to the Chinese factor by those who seek to create a New International Economic Order. China is seen as a major "trading partner" whose economic growth will assist in helping the economies of other nations.

Ignoring American public opinion, all American administrations have sought to overlook the blatant violation of human rights in China, stressing that the "international economy" would be strengthened if China were granted adequate financial credits to modernise its economy. A complete captive of the Zionist forces, which brought him to office, President Clinton pursues a strong pro-Chinese policy.

In spite of Prime Minister Keating's bleatings about Australia becoming more independent, his Government slavishly follows the policy of attempting to placate China at all costs. The Chinese no doubt smiled to themselves during Gareth Evans' last visit to China, during which he sought to portray himself once again as a great statesman strongly concerned about human rights.
The reality is that Communist China is, with the aid of the international bankers, quickly moving to become the third biggest economy in the world. It is building up a massive military force. Australians ignore these developments at their peril. Just because Bob Hawke appears to be pinning his hopes for the future on China does not mean that Australia should follow his lead. It should seek to develop a policy of genuine independence, which enables it to trade with China, or any other Asian nation, from a position of strength.

THE BREAK-UP OF THE LIBERAL PARTY

by David Thompson
The dramatic sacking of Dr. John Hewson from the front bench of the Liberal Party is a reflection of a deep malaise that gnaws away at the vitals of a party that was originally a conservative party. Although Mr. Downer's action against Hewson was primarily a matter of internal party power struggles, it reflects the tension that is generated by basic philosophical differences. The cancer that is afflicting the Liberals is that of small 'l' liberalism; a betrayal of the conservative values for which the Party once stood. This process of retreat from genuine conservative values is well illustrated by the deep divisions in the Party on the homosexual issue.

As with the republican issue, the ALP have set the agenda for the debate on the Tasmanian homosexual laws in such a way that the Coalition's phony conservatism is exposed. The bitter conflict is generated when the grassroots of the Party expect it to oppose the ALP's legislation designed to override the Tasmanian laws, but the Parliamentary section of the Party has betrayed such values. Downer himself is weak on the homosexual issue.

The Commonwealth legislation has been cleverly drafted, as Hewson pointed out, as "sexual privacy" legislation. Hewson and other small 'l' liberals like backbencher Peter Nugent, argue that the Coalition must support the ALP in this. The Liberal Party is thus seduced by Keating and Lavarch into a damaging internal debate over individual rights versus States' rights.

THE SHALLOW 'INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS' ARGUMENT

The new "sexual privacy" legislation purports to protect the individual's right to pursue sexual activities in the privacy of their own bedroom, without Big Brother watching over their shoulder. However, other criminal activities, such as distributing drugs in private, cannot be condoned because of the damage done to both the individual and the social structure. The Liberals would be much better advised to begin making the case that parents have the right to expect the law to protect their children from the corruption of homosexual activity.

The homosexual lobby itself is not claiming that the Tasmanian law invades their privacy. They argue that it discriminates against their lifestyle. David McLachlan, convener of the Gay and Lesbian Rights lobby, claims that the law must be struck down "to redress the injustices we face because our relationships are not recognised..." Striking down the Tasmanian law is simply another step towards full recognition of the homosexual lifestyle as a valid alternative.

The most basic weakness of the Commonwealth legislation is that it is quite outside the spirit of the Constitution, which makes no provision whatever for the Commonwealth to legislate on sexual matters. This is the role of the States. If the ALP argues that the High Court gives the Commonwealth the power to give effect to international treaties, the Coalition can still argue that this is unconstitutional. Further, they can underline their case in the Parliament by voting against unconstitutional law.

ALP CAUGHT WITH PANTS DOWN

Evidence now emerges that the UN Human Rights Committee decision on the Tasmanian laws was made on the basis of false evidence. Both the homosexuals and the ALP argue that the legislation in Tasmania is neither enforceable, nor enforced. Mr. Guy Barnett, of the Liberal Lawyers Association of Tasmania, provides stunning evidence that the homosexual law has often been used: Tasmanian court records reveal that since 1976 there have been 46 separate convictions under Sections 122 & 123 (of the Criminal Code). In the past 10 years there have been 15 convictions, the most recent being in early July 1994. The figures show that of the 54 victims since 1976, 48 were 18 years or under, including 27 aged 12 or under. The law has been targeting, successfully, deviant sexual behaviour, not simply homosexual practices as the community has been led to believe..." (The Australian, 26/8/94).

Even the homosexual lobby have been forced to admit that when the Commonwealth overrides the Tasmanian law, further legislative amendments will be required to protect young Tasmanian boys from sexual abuse! It seems that even the ALP has been caught with their pants down by this militant homosexual lobby with deceptive arguments.

MASS SUICIDE OF THE LIBERAL PARTY

Mr. Downer's actions against Hewson last week, and the resulting tensions within the Party, produce a new political situation. The wounds of the Coalition will be exploited by Mr. Keating and the ALP, and electoral success is even more difficult. One Sunday newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph, has already written off any chance of Coalition success at the next election: "Whatever happens the Liberal Party is a shambles and has no way of regrouping in order to become a formidable opponent in the 1996 election..." (28/8/94). This, however, may be incorrect on the timing of the election: already there are suggestions that Mr. Keating could spring a 1994 election, and take full political advantage of what appears to be the mass suicide of the Liberal Party.

ABORIGINAL FLAG AT COMMONWEALTH GAMES

The decision of part Aboriginal athlete Cathy Freeman to take a lap of honour carrying the Aboriginal 'flag' after winning her well deserved gold medal at the Commonwealth Games has been supported by both the Prime Minister and Mr. Downer. It is clear that this was not a purely spontaneous gesture. An Athletics Australia official, Geoffrey Rowe, produced the flag from the stands, and Freeman carried it until a spectator virtually demanded that she carry an Australian flag as well.

While congratulating Freeman on her athletic success, it is far from mean spirited to observe that as an Australian athlete, her primary loyalty should be to the country that offered her and her colleagues the opportunity for international success - Australia. Far from being a symbol of reconciliation, the Aboriginal 'flag' is a symbol of even further division, with hard-line Aboriginal groups using it in their own campaign for separate black statehood.

It is clear that Freeman broke the Australian team rules by using the Aboriginal flag, and even aware of this, did so a second time. If all competitors are free to display their flags of cultural origin, other Australian competitors might display the Greek, Italian, Bulgarian, flags, or even the Union Jack. Other Australians would feel justifiably slighted if Kieren Perkins displayed the Queensland flag!

THE DAY KEATING TURNED AWAY FROM BLUE

THE TRIALS OF COUNTRY LIFE UNDER KENNETT

from The Age (Melbourne), 23/8
This one especially for Victorians - other States won't escape. "The level of hypocrisy, if not so apparent, would be unbelievable. "Eight to 10 years ago, the then Cain Labor Government tried to impose municipal amalgamations on the State. Victorians, angry about the attempted dictation, objected so strongly that the Government was forced to retreat. "During the furore, the Liberal-National Coalition piously curried political favour by saying that it would never agree to municipal mergers without a referendum. Today, the Dr. Goebbels like big lie of those days would be laughable if the consequences for those of us trying to preserve rural life and assets were not so disastrous.

"It is obvious that the Kennett Government, arrogant with its huge majority, has told the Local Government Board to insist on regional amalgamations without regard to local opinion and without thought of the social impact on communities. "The options provided for targeted shires are similar to the choice of suicide by shooting, hanging or suffocation. And through it all, coalition numbers are doing nothing to stand up for the people they represent.

"Municipal mergers, rail and hospital closures, loss of doctors, hidden taxation through water and power charges ... the litany of penalties on country people is testimony to city partiality by a Government whose only answer to the State's chronic sickness is to encourage the rich to get richer and the poor poorer through the mental and moral cancer of addictive gambling." (Alan W. Lockwood, Natimuk, Vic.)

MULTILINGUALISM DIVIDING OUR NATION

from The Australian, August 25th
I refer to A.J. Grassby's letter (The Australian, 22/8) headed 'Dumping a Native Tongue'. "Al Grassby is one of those whose mindless advocacy of turning Australia into a modern tower of Babel has cost, and is still costing, this nation billions of dollars annually, dramatically increased industrial accidents and divided the nation. "Bringing migrants into this country, many of whom are still unable to speak even basic English, is a blunder of great magnitude and is not supported by the majority of Australians who have been denied a voice in the matter.

"Al Grassby states: 'Monolingualism is a disease that affects intercommunal relations and understanding.' "What an incredible statement! The corollary of this is that if everyone spoke a different language, relations between them would be better and they would understand each other better! It is obviously multilingualism that prevents communication. "We now have about 72 different languages in Australia. According to Al Grassby, this is a desirable situation! However, diversity in language is the surest way to divide any nation. "Different language groups will gather together and take steps to maintain their individual languages, which results in an insuperable problem for national unity. "Again to be able to communicate with even the most populous migrant language groups, one would have to learn six languages at the very least.

"Al Grassby seems to be ignorant of the fact that a number of languages have always been taught in Australian schools. "However, as most people who have studied a language at school - as I did know, its practical use is just about nil, because in this country there is no need to use it. "I have traveled the world on business over the past 30 years and have never had any difficulty being understood. The reason is clear - English is just about a universal language, and it is for this reason that nearly all non-English-speaking countries find it necessary to speak English.

An excellent example of the great benefit monolingualism can provide is the international aviation industry, in which every pilot, regardless of country, must be able to speak English. "If this were not so, can you imagine the utter confusion? Aircraft controller numbers would have to be increased tenfold and switched with lightning speed from screen to screen as language requirements dictated.

"That there is a need for some Australians to speak a chosen language fluently - and the emphasis is on fluency - there is no doubt. Such people are engaged in specialist areas such as diplomacy, travel, etc. "The multitude of newspapers, radio stations, etc., now operating in Australia with a great diversity of language is a situation nothing short of disastrous. "God help us if we ever have to go to war - can you imagine the utter confusion! Half the army would consist of interpreters and we would be quickly overwhelmed by some monolingual adversary."
(F.J. Robinson, Lindfield, N.S.W.)