DOUBLE STANDARDS ON NIGERIAN TRAGEDY

"When the British Government, eight years ago, set up a nation of mixed tribes and religions, (in Nigeria) in the simple faith that democracy would work without a strong central army, it was either unduly optimistic or in too much of a hurry to relieve itself of a heavy burden. If the Biafrans continue their desperate and suicidal resistance, the only hope of peace lies in an agreement between the great powers to end the supply of arms and place the whole of Nigeria in strict quarantine" - from editorial in The Age, Melbourne, December 3.

It is reported that 200,000 of the Ibos tribe in Biafra died of starvation in October, 300,000 in November, and that the death toll for this month will be in excess of 500,000. This shocking disaster flows direct from the criminally irresponsible policy of successive British Governments. But in spite of the Nigerian and other disasters in "liberated" Africa, the Australian Government lends its support to the international campaign to force the Rhodesian Government to introduce "majority rule".
All kinds of fantastic charges have been made at the United Nations about the police state" in Rhodesia, and much moralising about alleged lack of "political rights" and "unconstitutional" activities. But the mass horror of Nigeria provokes comparatively little concern.

The Age, a strong anti-Rhodesian paper, provides a typical example of the hypocrisy and double standards so prevalent today. It suggests that the United Nations take action to end the Nigerian tragedy. But there is no solution to the Nigerian question until the truth is admitted that it is completely unrealistic to have a stable nation consisting of tribes with different backgrounds and a long history of tribal friction. Moshe Tshombe stressed this point, observing that the only hope of the Congo surviving was in a type of loose Federation with sufficient local autonomy to minimise friction resulting from any attempt to impose strong central government.
It is instructive to note that prior to the conflict, which erupted last year, the Soviet Union had little contact with Nigeria. But it has quickly exploited the situation, and on November 21 the Nigerian Federal Government in Lagos signed an economic and technical assistance scheme with the Soviet, this involving a $140 million package of long term-credits.
There has been an increasing flow of Soviet military support for the Federal Government.

The Russian economic mission, which toured Nigeria before the November 21 agreement concentrated upon the mainly Muslim areas of the North. This fits into the Soviet's overall strategy of cultivating the goodwill of Muslim communities everywhere. New types of Soviet bombers, flown now by trained Nigerian pilots instead of, as previously, by Egyptians, are being used by the Federal Government to intensify the pressure on the Biafrans, making it increasingly difficult even for relief food supplies to be brought in for the starving population, and a secret agreement permits the Soviet Navy to use Lagos, providing the Soviet with its first port on the Atlantic Ocean.

Instead of insisting at the UN that it is making a new nation out of the diverse tribes of Papua New Guinea and the neighbouring islands, the Australian Government might first consider the experiences of Africa before rigidly pursuing a policy of centralisation which can only result in friction. The first signs are appearing. And the Soviet strategists are just as ready to exploit friction to the north of Australia as they have demonstrated they are in Africa.
Needless to say, the Soviet are quite happy to have the Nigerian tragedy continue, even if millions of Biafrans die, so long as they can extend their influence in Lagos.

Fabian Socialist Harold Wilson, who is so "moral" about Rhodesia, shows no great concern about Nigeria - except to help supply arms to the Lagos Government. Surely civilised people are not going tolerate indefinitely this sickening example of double standards?

SOVIET NAVAL STRATEGY DEVELOPING

"San Diego (California), November 26, - The commander of the American Pacific Fleet's anti-submarine force said today the Soviet Union had 100 submarines operating in the Pacific Ocean and China about 30" - The Age, Melbourne, November 27.

Progressive expansion of its naval forces is a major feature of a clearly defined Communist global strategy. The build-up of Soviet naval strength, in both the Pacific and Indian Oceans, must be of vital concern to thinking Australians. It is not so many months ago that External Affairs Minister was attempting to "play down" concern about the Soviet thrust into the Indian Ocean, suggesting that questions on the issue were "hypothetical" and "speculative". There is nothing hypothetical about the fact that at present there are two Soviet squadrons operating in the Indian Ocean. From the Pacific Fleet base at Vladivostok, a big cruiser and two destroyers, one a guided missile ship, have arrived into the Indian Ocean through the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia, trailed by two oil ships and a tender. A guided-missile destroyer and two submarines came around the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa, from the Mediterranean. They were accompanied by four or five non-combat ships.
The Soviet appearance in the Indian Ocean is the third in the last six months.

Soviet ships will probably visit all the countries visited in May: India, Pakistan, Ceylon, friendly Arab states like Irak, and Eastern African countries. A forward-looking Australian strategy at the present time would be closer relationships with the South Africans, Portuguese and Rhodesians in Southern Africa. Australian support for economic sanctions against Rhodesia is playing the Soviet's game.

1969 FINANCIAL FUND SURGES FORWARD

DOUBLE-TALK ON CHICAGO "POLICE BRUTALITY"

"Police were to blame for most of the violence that shocked the world during the Democratic Party National Convention in Chicago last August, says a report released today" - The Sun, Melbourne, December 3.

Needless to say, sections of the Australian press have headlined and introduced the American report on the Chicago violence in a manner calculated to further the propaganda line about "police brutality" which most of the news agencies fed out of Chicago last August. But a careful reading of those portions of the report published in the Australian press reveals that the police were weary and harassed beyond endurance, and were the victims of calculated provocation.
The police were working up to fifteen-hour shifts under conditions of extreme tension.

It is plain double-talk to blame the Chicago police for the violence, which occurred when this was exactly what the revolutionaries gathered in Chicago had planned. Of course innocent people were hurt. And of course some police broke under the strain and attacked "their tormentors with malicious, mindless ferocity". The Chicago police force may not be the best in the world. But to blame the police for resorting to violence in the face of the situation produced in Chicago by the forces of revolution camouflages the real cause of the Chicago affair.
Even the report admits that the police were goaded by "the vilest conceivable language".

They were attacked with barrages of rocks and bottles over five days. Demonstrators used razor blades in their shoes when kicking police. The police were bombarded with golf balls that had razor blades and nails sticking from them. Some demonstrators were shouting, "We gotta kill all the cops". There was "open love making", with both males and females stripping off all their clothes. Plastic bags of human excreta were thrown at the police. One demonstrator gave a policeman a sandwich of excreta.
The much-maligned Mayor Daley of Chicago has observed, "I am pleased that the report notes that a majority of policemen did act responsibly in exceedingly provocative circumstances".

All over the world Communist revolutionaries are perfecting the tactics of provoking police to the stage where they are forced to resort to force. Sections of the press and TV can then be relied upon to take up the chant of "police brutality". And so there is a further erosion of law and order. Australians should take note.

A NEW BOUT OF WESTERN RETREATISM

"The Nixon Administration is coming to power precisely when conditions may be more favourable to new initiatives in world politics. This is my dominant impression from a long journey out through the European capitals to Moscow and back... Washington, Moscow and Peking all have serious internal problems and are now talking at least about negotiations to reduce the risks and costs of their present differences" - James Reston of The New York Times as reported in The Age, Melbourne, November 30.

Mr. Reston and The New York Times have a long record of wishful thinking about Communism. Mr. Reston suggests that both Moscow and Peking are interested in meaningful talks. The Communists only engage in talks as part of their overall method of waging psychological warfare. The fact that Peking has approached Washington for a resumption of talks in Warsaw on February 20 merely indicates a change of tactics, not of purpose.
The only new initiatives available to Mr. Nixon are a reversal of the basic policies being pursued with such disastrous results by the U.S.A. and other Western nations for the past half a century.

On the same day that Mr. Reston's report appeared, a panel of "eminent scholars" in the U.S.A. recommended President-elect Nixon to adopt a softer line on Communism. The easing of pressure on Red China and restraint in American military preparedness is urged. The United States should urge Japan to make contacts with Red China so as "to help China adjust to relations with the 'outside' world".

Most of these "eminent scholars" are noted for their long records of defeatism in the face of constant militant Communist global strategy. Any further weakening in Western policies against International Communism would be a signal for the Communist strategists to intensify their developing global strategy.

THE WEEK IN BRIEF