HOW SINCERE IS PRESIDENT JIMMY CARTER?

by Eric D. Butler
As one who has been publicising the realities of Communist type warfare over a lifetime, I do not doubt that the Soviet's naked use of force to prop up a puppet Government in Afghanistan poses an expansion of the Communist threat to what is left of the Free World. But what I do doubt - in the absence of an upsurge of informed anti-Communist public opinion and an in-depth political, economic and psychological campaign - is that the Carter campaign will be carried beyond the American Presidential Elections in November of this year.

The wishful thinkers have been suggesting that the Soviet strategists have made a major miscalculation by invading Afghanistan. For example, it has been claimed that Afghanistan could be the Soviet's Vietnam. But unlike the Americans, betrayed by those imposing a no win policy, the Soviet is ruthless and is applying the same type of force used in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

The strong words by President Jimmy Carter are not going to have the slightest effect on the Soviet strategists. They are going to consolidate themselves in Afghanistan in the same way that they have consolidated themselves in every other country they have taken over. They believe in winning. American opinion polls demonstrate that the American people are prepared to rally behind an Administration that is at least creating the impression of hitting back at the Soviet. But what concerns the mature students of the World Revolution, is just how much understanding does Jimmy Carter - or Prime Minister Fraser - have of the realities of the situation.

President Carter says that he learned more in a week about the Soviet's intentions than he had learned previously. His statement that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is "the greatest threat to peace since the Second World War" is a change from a previous statement that free people should not have an inordinate fear of Communism." But the question still remains, "How much has President Carter really learned since the Afghanistan invasion?"

A study of the American President's remarks indicates a lack of understanding of Marxist-Leninist warfare. For example, while agreeing that the Soviet invasion of Hungary and Czechosolovakia was also serious, he said there was not the same threat to world peace as the two countries invaded were already "subservient to the Soviet Union." But immediately following the Second World War, Czechosolovakia was relatively free. That degree of freedom was abruptly ended in February 1948, as a result of a coup organised inside the country. But the coup was coordinated with a massing of Soviet forces on the borders.

When there was an attempt by the Czechoslovakians to regain a little of their freedom in 1968, the Soviet moved in with massive forces in the same way that they moved into Hungary in 1956 when, after having been forced to retreat temporarily because of the popular anti-Communist uprising, they realised that the West was not going to take any action.
Incidentally, in view of President Carter's promise to support the Tito regime in Yugoslavia against a Soviet invasion, it should be recalled that "independent" Tito announced at the time of Hungary that he would, if necessary, fight with the Soviet.

A further indication of President Carter's inadequate grasp of the realities of the situation is his claim that the Afghanistan affair was a greater threat to world peace than previous invasions because Afghanistan was a "non-aligned" nation. But Cuba is also "nonaligned", with Castro Chairman of the so-called "non-aligned" nations. Cuban troops have been used by the Soviet right throughout Africa ever since the invasion of Angola.

A look at a map of the world shows how Ethiopia is a major strategic feature of the Soviet's global strategy, including control of Middle East oil supplies. Ethiopia was also "non-aligned", but no action was taken, or even suggested, by President Carter, when this country was conquered by the Soviet using Cuban troops and East German Generals.

In the welter of comment on the Soviet thrust into Afghanistan there has been a resurrection of the hoary myth about the alleged back down by the Soviet during the 1962 crisis. The end result of this "back down" was the consolidation of the Soviet base in Cuba, a base that has been increasingly strengthened and used by the Soviet in its global strategy. This will also be the end result in Afghanistan, which will be used as a forward base to apply increasing pressure to Iran and the whole subcontinent of India.

The basic weakness of the Carter strategy, with which Prime Minister Fraser is aligning Australia, is that it is primarily defensive. The clear inference in President Carter's statements is that there is no suggestion of any of the Eastern European peoples, still less the peoples of the Soviet Union, being encouraged with a programme designed to free them. Such a programme would require an acceptance of the reality of total Communist warfare that in fact so far from the Afghanistan incident threatening peace, there has been no genuine peace in the world since the end of the Second World War. If Prime Minister Fraser will encourage President Carter and Prime Minister Thatcher to accept the real Communist challenge by a complete economic, political and psychological boycott of the Soviet and its satellites while at the same time increasing military preparedness, he will have rendered Civilisation a great service.

The answer to those who claim that other nations would not follow such a lead is that the United States and the Crown Commonwealth nations of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom, could be completely self-contained economically and could demonstrate to the rest of the world that there is no need to export to the Communist world. But this would require a basic change in present finance economic policies. It would mean a challenge to those international groups who benefit from those policies and who have been responsible for financing the Communist conspiracy.

The future of Civilisation depends upon that challenge being made. Unless it is made, President Carter and Mr. Fraser may by this time next year be safely guaranteed a further strut on the political stage, but the Soviets will have consolidated themselves in Afghanistan, while the propaganda tune will be that the past is past, let us all be "realists" and learn to live with the Soviet. The "cultural exchanges", which the Fraser Government has endorsed, and similar activities can then continue.

The Afghanistan affair has at long last permitted a little light to be let in on the realities of how the Soviet Union has been provided with economic blood transfusions from the non-Communist world. The light must now be turned up and those seeking to represent Australians in the Federal Parliament asked for some firm commitments before the next Federal Elections. Mr. Fraser and his colleagues can be put to the test now by asking them if they will lead the world by breaking all relationships with those whom the Prime Minister correctly says threaten our very future. In this way we could also test the sincerity of Jimmy Carter.

BRIEF COMMENTS

In his weekly broadcast last weekend, Prime Minister Fraser said, "The Pacific Basin Community concept is a forward looking idea, and we agreed that as a first step we would discuss it with our friends in the region. "If the response is encouraging Australia would be prepared to sponsor a seminar for this purpose later this year at the Australian National University, hopefully one of the first of a series of such seminars around the region." Mr. Fraser and the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Ohira, agreed last week that the first steps should be taken towards a loose economic and cultural Pacific alliance. Mr. Fraser is reported as saying he is worried about the Soviet obtaining a power base in the Pacific. In the meantime, however, Japan continues to provide economic blood transfusions to both the Soviet and Communist China. And Mr. Ohira says that the Pacific Basic Community would not be an exclusive club. The Soviet Union and China would be able to join! Every programme for centralising power merely assists the advance of totalitarianism.

The Communists must be rubbing their hands with pleasure as they witness developments in Rhodesia. Bishop Muzorewa threatens to pull out of the elections unless the British Administration takes firm action against a wave of rural violence by the "Patriotic" Front terrorists. As we predicted it has now been confirmed that Robert Mugabe had ordered some of his forces to remain outside the Commonwealth monitoring camps ready to resume fighting if Mugabe loses the elections. If Mugabe wins, he will impose a Marxist type State. This will not be condemned by Mr. Carter or Mr. Fraser as a threat to world peace.

Senator Glen Shiel (N.C.P.-Qld.) On Government; Politicians etc.: (From Human Rights Legislation debate: Senate (November 13th):
"... the men who wrote it (the American Declaration of Independence) saw nothing inconsistent with their ideas. People invent governments to do things for them that they cannot do for themselves, and the government has to be for the benefit of the people. Any government, which can alter its constitution unilaterally, is a government of tyranny, and I think human rights are justifiable if they are confined to the agreed amenities, which the government is to provide for the people.
But of course, we have activist groups all around the world, and here, wanting the governments to provide more and more amenities to get money for their little neck of the woods. They trade on the gullibility of politicians and the ambitions of bureaucrats too, and probably the apathy of the majority.
"Since the Second World War human rights have been bursting out of the United Nations without any questioning of their viability in international law, or without questioning their conflict with the sovereignty of different states. These documents are couched in terms, which are almost the same as propaganda rather than common sense. There was the United States Declaration of Independence, and then its Constitution, and then the ten amendments, which was actually the United States Bill of Rights. They were embodied in the Constitution as the ten amendments. Only four of those affected legal processes. This gives strength to the English law contention that the judiciary, by expounding the law, characterises it a lot more effectively than does the legislature.
" … After the American Civil War those rights were extended to the Negroes and people of other races and colours. It was not until 1920 that all those rights were extended to women in the United States of America. The rights were of a practical kind and arose from the experience of the people in the United States itself. The validity of the rights was determined by the people's interest. They were therefore subject to the will of the state. That there was a declaration obviously by no means implied that people could enjoy the rights so named. In international law individuals do not get much of a say except in the most exceptional circumstances. It is only states that are recognised in international law, and if a state wants to bring an action it has to do it on behalf of an individual…
"Some articles in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights are actually in conflict with laws of member countries. A particular example today is that of asylum for the Shah of Iran. He sought asylum in America. He is now being taken out of that country (to Panama) despite the United States asylum laws. The United Nations Universal Declaration was propounded and promulgated in 1948 and contained 30 articles, more than ever defined before.... Many nations do not accept the Declaration. Nonetheless, the United Nations has now taken action against nations that are regarded as backsliders, as though the Declaration was law. It has taken action against nations that have signed the (U.N.) Charter, but not the Declaration… I think it is the decline in the democratic systems that have been the most momentous event in our time, and the clamour for voting rights is not going to stop that...
Turning to the (Human Rights Commission) Bill itself, I will summarise what we have rights to. We have a right to our life. We have a right to anything we have earned and paid for. We have a right to anything that is freely given to us. Then we have a right to certain things, which the Government vouchsafes us. There are certain ways by which governments can give us rights. We can have them in the socialist way, as people do in the Soviet Union where the Government has given people the right to think their own thoughts, to meet, to work - all sorts of things. Just as in this (U.N.) Covenant, their Government has confined the right by saying that they have the right to those things provided they do not break any law. Their Government can then pass laws to effectively rob them of those rights.
If honourable senators believe the people there (USSR) can think their own thoughts without the Government knowing, they are wrong. The Government can tell from what a person reads, who he talks to, what shows he sees. If it thinks a person has subversive thoughts, that person can be goaled.
"That is in Russia. There one is given the right to work provided one does not break any law. If one goes on strike one is infringing someone else's right to work and can go to goal for that. That is the socialist way. That is what is in this covenant.
Australia is a common law country. We make up and expose our laws as we go. I think that it is the best system for Australia despite any shortcomings it has. In dealing with this Bill we are discussing another system. An international body has created a whole lot of human rights and then has imposed them on a country that is a signatory to its Charter. In other words, we have an international body determining what laws we shall pass in our country.
"The reason for the introduction of the Bill is merely that the Executive of the Government made a promise. It is one of the promises that it is not going to break. It wants to improve its image in the world, to be a leader, to show that Australia is aware of human rights. It wants to maintain that position.... My objection to this (Human Rights Commission) Bill is that an outside agency is determining the laws to be passed in this country. All the definitions of the rights that are in this covenant are qualified by the proviso that one does not break any law.