SOVIET UNION'S "PEACE OFFENSIVE" IN SOUTH-EAST ASIA

"The Soviet Union had been helping the United States to achieve peace in Vietnam, neutralise South-East Asia and check Chinese advance to the South, veteran Ambassador Averell Harriman disclosed yesterday in a remarkably frank Meet the Press television interview". The Age, Melbourne, January 28.

It is not surprising that Mr. Averell Harriman should further dangerous delusions about the Soviet Union. He has a long diplomatic history of appeasing the Soviet leaders, and must be listed as one of those in the West who have played a disastrous role in helping to produce the present world crisis. Harriman was American Ambassador to Moscow during World War II. He was one of Roosevelt's top advisers during the period when at Teheran and Yalta conferences Stalin was having most of his demands met. Even in 1951 when the Soviets had completed their conquest of Eastern Europe and China, Harriman was still defending the secret Yalta Agreements of early 1945, which were a major victory for Stalin.

The late President John Kennedy made Harriman Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs. Harriman was personally responsible for the Kennedy Administration's threat to cut off aid to Laos unless Loations were prepared to accept Communists into a "neutral" Government. Laos was "neutralised" in 1962. Harriman told members of the American Congress that, "it doesn't matter much to us, one way or the other, what happens in Laos". Americans concessions in Laos in 1962 encouraged the intensification of the Communist pressure on Vietnam. "Neutral" Laos provided the Communists with bases and a route down which they flooded military equipment and men for the war in South Vietnam. And now come reports that Hanoi is assisting the Pathet Lao in Laos to initiate large-scale fighting against the troops under the control of the Laos Government.

Instead of being fired for his disastrous policy in Laos, Harriman was promoted in the State Department and in July 1963 he went to Moscow to negotiate the nuclear test ban treaty. And then President Johnson used him to represent his Administration at the Paris talks with Hanoi. Harriman used his influence to ensure that the National Liberation Front was represented at the round table when the formal "peace" talks started.

In his "remarkable frank" television interview in Washington, Harriman denied that it was to the Soviet's advantage to have the U.S. "bogged down in South - East Asia", replying that "The Russians were helpful in October and helpful recently". He said that "I talked to Mr. Kosygin three years ago and he made it very plain they wanted to see peace come to South-East Asia. They want to see a South- East Asia that is neutral, to check Chinese advance to the south".
If had not been for the massive sophisticated military and economic support supplied by the "peaceful" Soviet to North Vietnam, and the failure of the American policy makers, men like Mr. Averell Harriman who have peddled the myth about the "mellowing" Soviet leaders, to take the necessary military steps to prevent this Soviet equipment from reaching North Vietnam - by blockading Haiphong for example; the war in Vietnam would have ended a long time ago.

If the Soviet really wishes to contain the Chinese, why has it not encouraged the Americans to do this?
Experts on Soviet strategy have been warning for several years now that the Soviet was fostering the idea that it was keen to reach an agreement with the Americans to "neutralise" South-East Asia as a barrier against Red Chinese expansion. But, as always, the Soviet's concept of "neutralism" is one, which enables it to expand its global strategy. Averell Harriman is once again lending his support to the Soviet strategists. The West's future now depends upon how soon Western policy makers "see through" Soviet double-talk and take firm action to prevent any further Soviet expansion.

DEFICIENCY FUND

RACE PROBLEM FLARES IN BRITAIN

"A standing ovation from more than a 1000 people acclaimed a speech yesterday by Mr. Edward Heath calling for stricter control of immigration. Mr. Heath, Leader of the Conservative Opposition, demanded fresh law's immediately to tighten existing checks on the flow of migrants which are adding to Britain's dark millions. One of applauding Mr. Heath's speech was Mr. Enoch Powell, who was dismissed from the Tory shadow Government by Mr. Heath last April. This was just after Mr. Powell had made his 'Britain must be mad' speech, condemning colored immigration." - The Sun (Melbourne), January 27.

Mr. Heath's address on immigration has been described as marking "the end of an era" in Britain. By openly endorsing the Enoch Powell stand, the British Tory leader has reflected the growing groundswell of concern amongst the British people about the effects of mass non-European immigration. Race has been openly projected into British politics, an incredible development, which not so many years ago would have been disbelieved if suggested. The "multi-racial society" just does not work out. And it cannot be denied that the British are perhaps the most tolerant people in the world.
Needless to say, Mr. Heath's address was strongly attacked by spokesmen for Left-wing organisations, some of them little more than thinly - disguised Communist fronts.

Mr. Bagmohan Joshi, national secretary of the Indian Workers' Association of Great Britain, called Mr. Heath's speech "the most vicious and dangerous yet made by a politician." Mr. Joshi threatened that in India "the people, if not the Government, would seize British investment and for every Indian forced to leave Britain, an Englishman would be forced to leave India. These threats recall Karl Marx's famous statement that the English would never make their own revolution, and that foreigners would have to make it for them.

Growing race conflict in Britain should act as a powerful antidote to suggestions of Australia attempting to create a multi-racial society. Victorian Liberal State Member, Mr. Brian Dixon, who talks sense on many issues, is one of the latest to lend his voice to that of multi-racial society advocates. Equally dangerous is the advocacy by Federal Minister for the Interior, Mr. Peter Nixon (Country Party) that all Australian schools should cease teaching European languages such as French, and teach Asian languages. Mr. Nixon also suggests dropping the teaching of British and European history, and the replacement by Asian history

Mr. J. E Menadue, President of the Australian Natives Association, made a most appropriate reply to Mr. Nixon, pointing out that all Australia's cultural and historical ties are with Europe, not Asia. "If we do that, we forget what the philosophers Plato, Demostrenes, Aristotle and others taught us, we forget Magna Carta and we forget everything that followed, including the principles of democracy."

Australians who want to learn Asian languages should be enabled to do so. But it is dangerous defeatism to parrot that Australia's destiny is tied up with Asia. At the moment the leaders of South-East Asia are desperately seeking Australian guarantees of continued military and economic aid. Australia can provide proper aid and support for its Asian neighbours only by remaining true to its own traditions. Governor Phillips put the matter clearly on January 26, 1788 when he said, "We hope not only to occupy and rule this great country but also to become the beneficent patron of all the nations of the Southern Hemipshere".

FALSE ECONOMICS FORCING RECOGNITION OF RED CHINA

"Tokyo, January, 27, Japan's Prime Minister (Mr. Sato) said today that Japan would welcome Communist China becoming a widely accepted member of the international community. In a notably warmer mood than normal when speaking of Peking, Mr. Sato said that relations with China was the major problem facing Japan in Asia. " The Age (Melbourne), January 28.

The Japanese Government has been under pressure for years by shortsighted Japanese businessmen who believe that with a change in political attitudes towards Peking by Tokyo, they could increase their exports to Red China. Reports from Japan state that the Sato Government has been prompted to soften its public attitude towards Peking because it is felt that the decisions by the Trudeau Government in Canada, and the new Leftist Italian Government, to seek new relations with Red China, and the growing campaign for a change in attitude by the U.S.A. (Senator Edward Kennedy has been the latest to join this campaign) are all signals that a new situation is developing. Japan has big investments in Formosa, but is moving towards the "Two China" policy, under which both Red China and Formosa (Taiwan) would be seated in the United Nations. But it is the lure of the vast Chinese market, which is the major driving force behind most those who wish to give official recognition to the Peking criminals.
Those who are willing to sell their souls for a mess of trade pottage will unfortunately pay a disastrous price.

ESSENTIAL BACKGROUND FOR READING "ON TARGET"

TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN RUSSIA AND YUGOSLAVIA

"Russia and Yugoslavia are negotiating a trade agreement for next year. The annual negotiations, within the framework of a long-term trade plan between the two countries for 1966-70, began early this week". - The Australian, December 21. 1968.

Since the above report appeared, there has been an obvious relaxation of the "Crisis" condition, which allegedly existed between Moscow and Belgrade following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August of last year. The old hard-line Communist Tito knows just how much his country's economy depends upon the Soviet Union. The Soviet offers Yugoslavia a market for ships, locomotives, electrical equipment and machines. An examination of Tito's foreign policy reveals that it meshes in neatly with that of the Soviet Union. Tito regards himself as a loyal member of the Socialist Empire. But minister for External Affairs Paul Hasluck and his departmental advisers persist in believing that Tito is an "independent Communist".

THE WEEK IN BRIEF

ON TARGET BULLETIN

SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
The States and the Federal System

The Sun, (Melbourne) of January 29 reports the Victorian Minister for Education, Mr. Lindsay Thompson as having said at the annual conference of the Victorian Teachers' Union that the present Commonwealth-State financial set-up would "kill Victoria and other States". Mr. Thompson provided some sobering financial facts. He pointed out that if the Federal Government builds a school costing $1rnillion in the Australian Commonwealth Territory, the ACT pays only the $1 million. But if Victoria, any other State, builds the same school, by the time the loan from the Federal Government is repaid, the school costs the States $2.5 million!
The Commonwealth is profiteering and under mining the States by lending them back their own tax money.
It is clear that the Federal System of Government is doomed if financial domination by Canberra continues much longer.

Now there are many who say that the sooner the States are abolished the better. "Why should a comparatively small population in Australia have seven Parliaments?" is a question often asked. "What about the financial cost?" is another question.

It is elementary that if State Governments were completely abolished, the many responsibilities they exercise at present would have to be taken over by Canberra. Now the Federal politicians are already finding themselves largely "yes-men" for the vast Federal bureaucracy. More centralised power at Canberra would mean a graphic expansion of bureaucracy to take over the present responsibilities of the States. The increased financial cost would be enormous.

The history of Government shows very clearly that effective self-government requires that government be close to the people. In a vast country like Australia, with so many different conditions, it is impossible for any central Government to know what is best for each part of Australia. Speaking at a Constitutional Convention in Sydney in 1950, Mr. Ulich Ellis said:
"In my time I have been a permanent public servant and I know something about the difficulties of administering the problems of Australia from the present remote seat of government. In an area of the extent of Australia it is absolutely impossible for any set of Ministers or administrators sitting in that one remote capital to have anything like a reasonable conception of the detailed local problem of Australia. If Australia became a completely unified nation, Canberra would become an immense bottleneck. Every decision relating to every matter concerning every person in every part of Australia would ultimately drift to the Ministers and departments at Canberra. Instead of having the bottlenecks that now exist, we would have all neck and no bottle. There would be unlimited chaos.

The Federal Government was the creation of the Sovereign States. It was granted powers from the States to look after matters like defence and international affairs, but the States remained sovereign in most matters. The Federal System was devised as a compact between the Federal Government and the States. The Senate was designed as a States' Upper House in the Federal System. There was to be a balance. But, just as was feared by many before Federation, there has been a constant drive to expand the power of the Central Government at the expense of the States. The real sufferers have been the Australian people, who with every move towards centralism are losing more of their self-governing rights. Australia is moving towards a bureaucratic despotism, one that suits the purposes of Communists. A halt must be called to the undermining of the States.