AUSTRALIA UNDER ATTACK FROM U.N. COMMITTEE

"The Australian Government is seriously considering withdrawing its membership of the United Nations committee on decolonisation, known as the committee of 24... The Australian Government is reported to be seriously concerned about the direction taken by the committee in its unreasonable attacks on powers responsible for dependent territories." - The Australian, February 13.

Unfortunately the Australian Government has not as yet withdrawn from a UN committee whose main purpose is to serve the interests of the international revolutionaries. Instead of wasting time and money of Australians on this committee, the Australian Government should make it clear that it is going to stop retreating in the face of the anti-colonial campaign, and that it is going to handle the development of Papua-New Guinea in its own way. The current farcical proceedings in Papua-New Guinea, with an attempt to encourage native peoples to participate in a political system they do not understand, is not doing anything to placate the international revolutionaries, who keep on demanding that Australia grant independence almost immediately.

The present President of the United Nations Trusteeship Council is a Miss A. Brooke from Liberia. After a visit to Papua-New Guinea, Miss Brooks said in Canberra on February 12 that "colonial powers should not be afraid of criticism, especially if they have nothing to hide." She said that she did not disagree with the criticism by the committee of 24. In fact Miss Brooks offered some criticism of her own.
But what about her own country. Liberia?

Liberia has had well over 100 years of independence, but after this long period it is as backward as most other African countries. The literacy rate is only 10 per cent. There is the usual measure of corruption and maladministration and a one-party system of Government.

Australia should cease listening to Miss Brooks and her kind, and refuse to make any further explanations at the UN concerning what is being done in Papua-New Guinea.

COMMUNISTS CAN BE DEFEATED IN VIETNAM

"In the face of a second wave of nation-wide Viet Cong attacks more than 200 South Vietnamese politicians - many of them strongly opposed to the present Government - met yesterday to form an anti-communist front. Observers were struck by the fact that the meeting - organised by the pro-Government figures and Government officials close to Vice-President Nguyen Cao Ky - attracted noted politicians who only a few months ago had vowed never to rest until Vice-President Ky and President Nguyen Van Thieu had been removed from office." - The Age, Melbourne, February 20.

Immediately following the start of the current Viet Cong attacks throughout South Vietnam a major international campaign developed with the central theme that "America cannot win in Vietnam; it should now settle for a negotiated peace." Senator Robert Kennedy was accorded press headlines everywhere as this notorious defeatist said, "It is time to... face the reality that a military victory is not in sight and that it probably will never come."
Many newspapers around the world have echoed the view of the New York Times as expressed on February 8:
"A negotiated settlement seeking a political accommodation under international supervision remains the alternative to a prolonged war of attrition, a war that neither side can win."

If the report from The Age quoted above had been one concerning a group of South Vietnamese politicians organising to overthrow the South Vietnamese Government, it would have been given front-page treatment with sensational headlines. But it was "played down" in every press report we have seen. It is clear that in spite of the frightful campaign of Viet Cong terrorism, the South Vietnamese have not collapsed. The greatest danger of collapse is outside Vietnam, where the defeatists and traitors are receiving most of the headlines, however, many sincere people are asking, "Can America and her allies win in Vietnam?"
The answer is that they cannot win while fighting under rules dictated by the Communists.
But if they refuse to fight under these rules, there is no doubt whatever that America could win in a very short time.

A large number of American military leaders have said that the United States and allies could win in Vietnam in a very short time - if they stopped being afraid of the Communists and told the Soviet Union that no more military equipment and economic aid would be permitted to pass through the Port of Haipong.

BRITISH RETREAT AIDS COMMUNIST EXPANSION IN MIDDLE EAST

"Britain's honeymoon period with Saudi Arabia - a profitable five years since it re-established diplomatic relations - has come to a sorry end. King Faisal's disillusionment with Britain began when Eden and South Arabia were handed over to a regime considered in Riyadh to be pro-communist and utterly hostile to Saudi Arabia. Then last month the British Government broke its two-month-old pledges to King Faisal over its defence commitments in the Persian Gulf." - The Australian, February 19.

The special relationship, which Britain had with Saudi Arabia, was the result of the British refusal to follow the American lead in recognising the Republican regime in the Yemen. British trade boomed and a most profitable defence contract of over $200 million was signed. But Socialist Harold Wilson continues to demonstrate, as in the cases of South Africa and Rhodesia that he is not prepared to pursue any policies beneficial to the British economy if this means opposing the forces of world revolution.
One result of the Wilson policy is that Moscow's friend de Gaulle is moving in to Saudi Arabia to replace the British.

In the meantime Soviet influence continues to expand in the Arabian Peninsula. Russian military equipment and technicians are moving into the Yemen as the Nasser forces move out. The revolutionary regime in Aden is backing the Yemen cause and is asking the Soviet for military equipment.
Soviet strategy visualises the taking over of the whole of the Middle East as a major aspect of the encirclement of Western Europe.

MELBOURNE MEETING ON MIDDLE EAST CRISIS

THE MORAL HUMBUG OF U THANT

"The United Nations Secretary-General, U Thant, began a hurried round of talks with Soviet leaders yesterday in another attempt to find a way of ending the Vietnam War. But his chance of winning open Soviet support for new diplomatic initiatives in the crisis were considered minimal by qualified sources in Moscow…The Secretary-General flew from India where, among other things, he conferred with a North Vietnamese diplomatic representative. He is expected to fly to London tonight for talks with the British Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson." The Australian, February 13.

Just before visiting Mr. Wilson, U Thant suddenly caused more "peace" headlines by a visit to see the North Vietnamese representative in Paris. Like Harold Wilson, who maintains that there is only a very narrow barrier preventing negotiations between Hanoi and Washington, the Burmese Socialist keeps on insisting that genuine peace talks are possible. But U Thant constantly takes the Communist viewpoint that before there can be any talks there must be an unconditional halt to American bombing.

In a press conference at the United Nations on January 11 1967, U Thant said that he believed the National Liberation Front was completely independent of Hanoi, that the West had no strategic interest in South Vietnam, that a Communist victory in South Vietnam would not mean other Communist victories in South-East Asia, and that the United States must end its bombing before there could be "any move towards peace."

It was following this press conference that the Washington Daily News said that "To ask U Thant to play the role of an honest broker in the task of finding a peaceful solution to the Vietnam war is - in the phrase of that now retired master of the Russian proverb, Nekita Khrushchev, like sending a goat to guard the cabbages."

At no time on any major issue has the UN Secretary-General supported any policy dangerous to Communist interests. That is why the Soviet leaders were delighted when U Thant agreed to continue as UN Secretary-General.

WELCOMING PROFESSOR HENRY MAYER

"Anti-fluoridationists the world over fall much into the same pattern as they do here: Some small anti-fluoride associations; anti-Semitic bodies -such as Eric Butler's Australian League of Rights; 'a natural health movement' opposed not just to dentists and doctors but to all drugs, inoculation, and vaccination, swearing by diet and 'positive thought' - the poor man's pre-Beatle brand of transcendental meditation. This motley lot has managed to frighten many a local council…" - Professor Henry Mayer in his column "Speaking Freely", - The Australian, February 16.

No doubt many of our readers will be surprised to know that the author of this abuse passes as a "political scientist" at the Sydney University. However, there is some prospect of Professor Mayer improving his knowledge - if not his manners - now that he is subscribing to all League of Rights publications: On Target, The Intelligence Survey, and Ladies Line. We welcome the good Professor to our growing circle of readers. And we do appreciate the free publicity.

Another intellectual - the new Latrobe University is to be blessed with his services - the quiz master himself, Mr. Barry Jones, also provided some free publicity last week when someone rang him up on the Melbourne radio "hot line" programme on 3DB, telling Mr. Jones about the League of Rights, distributing material at Mr. John Gorton's Caulfield Town Hall meeting. What did Mr. Jones know about Mr. Eric Butler? Plenty, said Mr. Jones. Those who wanted to know the dreadful truth should read Mr. K.D. Gott's Voices of Hate and the recent publication from the Sydney University Press, Politics of The Extreme Right. Professor Mayer's Department at the Sydney University is responsible for the latter book, in which Gott's little hate book is referred to as a "study".

If Professor Mayer, or Mr. Barry Jones, could continue their study of The Australian League of Rights to the point where they attend a League public meeting, they would find Voices of Hate on sale. The distribution of this book has had exactly the opposite effect to what its producers anticipated.

Every attack on the League brings new supporters who discover for themselves that the League consists of informed Australians from all walks of life who are united in their determination to defend their rights and liberties. Strangely enough, amongst the "motley lot" are doctors and dentists. But fortunately no political scientists."

KOREAN WAR CONTINUES

"United States and North Korean spokesmen today accused each other's government of trying to re-open the Korean war, the New York Times news service reports…The USS Pueblo the intelligence ship seized by North Korea on January 23, was mentioned only incidentally. North Korea charged that the United States had taken advantage of the incident to set the stage for a renewal of hostilities by building up the military capability in South Korea." - The Herald, Melbourne, February 20.

The recent attempt by the Communists from North Korea to murder the South Korean President, and the seizing of the American intelligence ship, have jolted many people into a realisation that the Korean War never really ended; that an armistice was all that was arranged. And this has been constantly violated by the Communists. They seek a repeat performance in Vietnam.

ON TARGET BULLETIN

SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The Money Vote

In our Bulletin issued on February 9, we dealt with the subject of Economic Democracy. It may be as well if actionists refresh their memories concerning the notes, as our subject for discussion in this Bulletin is closely related.
We saw how in a money economy prices are created as goods are produced, and that "money votes" are issued to individuals who can select in order of priority the goods and services they require. But for a genuine economic democracy it is essential that "money votes" are issuing from industry at the same rate as prices are created. Unless the total flow of "money votes does not match the total flow of prices, how can all goods be sold at a profitable price?

Now the truth is, as a number of investigations have shown, that modem, semi-automatic power-driven machinery does what it is supposed to do: it reduces labor costs. The whole drive towards greater industrial and farming efficiency is to increase output with less manpower. In theory it is possible to have complete automation, which would mean a flow of goods with prices on them and no distribution of "money votes."

A recent business survey in Australia revealed that the production system was easily capable of increased production with present plant and labour. But there was a lack of adequate demand. There is nothing wrong at all with the private enterprise system of production; all its problems are related to the financial system. In response to the problem of industry not distributing sufficient purchasing power - "money votes" - to meet prices, the Socialists and Communists urge that industry be nationalised. Clearly this does not improve the position.

The supporters of Keynes advocate that the deficiency of purchasing power be overcome by increased Government spending - "priming the pump." This in fact is what is happening, with results clear for all to see. There is progressive inflation, leading to growing industrial friction, which the Communists exploit. and a growing concentration of economic power as smaller producers are eliminated.

The problem facing the supporters of the free enterprise, competitive system, is how to ensure that adequate money votes are distributed without inflation and other problems.
It is elementary that if the financial system can be perverted to produce the present unsatisfactory results, it can be adjusted to produce genuine stability. To accept any suggestion that this cannot be done is to accept the doctrine of inevitability. This plays right into the hands of the Socialists and Communists.

In a very real sense, the modern production system is a credit system. Financial credit is created in the confident belief that the productive capacity of the community - its real credit - is capable of being used. It will be noted that the credit is issued before production takes place. Control of the creation and issue of financial credit is therefore control of production. Increasing Government control of credit therefore means increasing Government direction of the economy. But this is justified on the basis that this is necessary to keep the economy operating.

As an alternative to what is happening at present, actionists are requested to consider a system under which the Government would be required to have compiled every year a proper National Balance sheet, showing national capital appreciation and national capital depreciation. Also a regular record of wages, salaries and dividends distributed as compared with prices should be kept. This information would reveal the amount of extra purchasing power necessary to bridge the gap between prices and purchasing power distributed.

The following are ways and means for distributing what might in fact be termed the nation's real profit:
Credit could be created at the cost of administration (probably about half a per cent) by the Commonwealth Bank, or the private banks authorised to act for the Commonwealth Bank, to finance
(a) more generous pensions for elderly people, ex-servicemen and their dependents;
(b) necessary defence without taxation;
(c) the capital expansion activities of Local Government;
(d) a national production bonus system for all wage earners; and
(d) a national price subsidy system which would make inflation impossible.

The total amount of "money votes" distributed would be governed automatically by the facts, not by arbitrary Government action.

Actionists may have other suggestions. Let us have them.