Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
 Download Full Day's HansardDownload Full Day's Hansard    View Or Save XMLView/Save XML

Previous Fragment    Next Fragment
Tuesday, 22 March 1966

Dr GIBBS (Bowman) .- I support the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Holt) and reject the amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Calwell). I regard the amendment as being both unrealistic and unworthy of him or anyone with Australia's welfare at heart. In supporting the statement I shall devote the time available to me to considering the Vietnamese sector of the world struggle between freedom and militant Communism and shall indicate my reasons for wholeheartedly supporting the Government's action. The Vietnamese war is clearly and patently one phase in Communism's bid for world domination. It is apparent to all who will see - only people who have blinded themselves to the facts can believe otherwise - from the recent struggles in Korea, Malaya, Thailand, Laos, the Philippines, Burma or any other of these recent conflicts that this is the case. The conflict in Asia began in earnest in 1945 when the Moscow trained Communist Tran Van Giau led the revolt against the French.

To show how much this was a war of Communism versus freedom, Tran Van Giau decided to massacre not only the French but also the Vietnamese intellectuals as he felt that these people stood in his way. It was not his fault that he did not succeed. However, a little later in the same year, he did succeed in massacring hundreds of the Hoa Hao sect, even though they were anti-French. Naturally, in this struggle, true nationalists were often used as dupes in the same way as Tito in Yugoslavia used patriots who actually loathed Communism. He used these people in his struggle to foist Communism on his own people. This pattern has been the same everywhere and every conceivable and, certainly, some inconceivable means have been used to begin foci of discontent within the coveted country. Then, when this has begun to succeed, selected malcontents have been trained, usually in China or Russia in the first instance, and they have been reexported to expand this work. Then by threats and blandishments, murder, torture and by any possible means whatever, the cancer has been spread until a desperate situation has ensued within the country which may well fall to these evil men. The men behind these schemes have certainly been brilliant and their strategy, as we have seen, has been all too successful. One of the key figures in Asia is, of course, Mao Tse-tung who has played a vital part. He was aided in this by his study of the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu. If I may quote from the "Art of War" by Sun Tzu, an Oxford University Press publication which has been given the imprimatur of the United Nations Economic, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the translator states in the preface -

In Sun Tzu's view, the Army was the instrument which delivered the coup de grace to an enemy previously made vulnerable. Prior to hostilities, secret agents separated the enemy's allies from him and conducted a variety of clandestine and, subversive activities. Among their missions were to spread false rumours and misleading information, to corrupt and subvert officials, to create and exacerbate internal discord, and to nurture fifth columns. Meanwhile, spies, active at all levels, ascertained the enemy situation. On their reports, ' victorious ' plans were based. Marshal Shaposhnikov was not the first to comprehend that the prerequisite to victory is ' to make proper preparations in the enemy's camp so the result is decided beforehand '. Thus, the former Chief of the General Staff of the Red Army continues in a remarkable paraphase of Sun Tzu ' the victorious army attacks a demoralised and defeated enemy '. The ' Art of War ' has had a profound influence throughout Chinese history and on Japanese military thought: It is a source of Mao Tse-tung's strategic theories and of the tactical doctrine of the Chinese armies.

One can see that it is not only in China that this battle is being fought and that Mao Tse-tung's strategy is being used throughout all South East Asia today. Previously it was used in Korea under his direction and under his aegis. It is patently obvious that these matters are not symptoms of civil war and civil discontent; they have been deliberately fomented by Communists. Those in this country who will deny th:tt statement are merely fathering their 0"'!i destruction, or endeavouring to do so. The strategy that I have mentioned is obvious in Vietnam and it was only too obvious in Malaya. We saw in Singapore how this was done.

Selected people - honoured men, leaders of their people very often - were chosen as foci of discontent and they used their authority further to foment unrest. Occasionally schools were used to indoctrinate school children who were used in the struggle. When this phase of revolution had proceeded to the satisfaction of these criminal men, public disorder, rioting and murder was engaged in. We saw this in Malaya and in Singapore. The only trouble was that the Communists there did not follow the doctrines of Mao Tse-tung and Sun Tzu closely enough and they carried out a systematic, widespread terrorisation without respect to persons. The workers, as well as the owners of plantations and other leaders, were indiscriminately murdered. Consequently, everyone was repelled by them. Despite this, Mao Tse-tung reorganised this battle in Malaya and brought the fight more into line with his own strategic ideas. Unfortunately for the Communists, Sir Gerald Templer appeared on the scene and, by his forthright, brave and brilliant activities, the Communists were vanquished. Despite this, 1,275 Army per sonnel and policemen were killed by the Communists in rioting and fighting and 2,319 civilians were murdered or abducted during this time of struggle.

I do not think anyone, even on the Opposition benches, would endeavour to say that the Malayan struggle was a civil war or that the Korean battle was a civil war. Nor would they say that the fighting in the Philippines between the Communists and the free peoples were civil disorders. Yet the present situation in Vietnam is simply a magnified example of the same process. I feel that we must trace the history of this matter a- little further. February 1948 saw the intensification of the struggle by the Communists in Asia. This part of the world, wartorn, simmering with discontent and dawning nationalism, unhappy from their experiences at the hands of the Japanese, disillusioned by the performance of European peoples during the Second World War. was considered by the Communists to be ripe for a wholesale and universal thrust against freedom. Consequently there was held in Calcutta the second Indian Communist Congress which was held simultaneously with an international congress of Asian youth. A Moscow man came to this conference wits the grand plan which had been spawned in Moscow. At this conference the basic paper discussed was " Revolutionary Possibilities for 1948 ". At this conference, one of the delegates, speaking about fa*, national discontent that had encouraged the congress, said -

So powerful are these struggles and sn great their revolutionary sweep that the achievement at one stroke of people's democracy becomes an immediate attainable object.

Plans were then laid for the widespread Communist subversion of South East Asia. How quickly they were successful can be seen in the fact that on 28th February 1949 Pandit Nehru made some significant observations when addressing the Constituent Assembly in India. In no circumstances could he be called an American lackey or an imperialist lackey. He was a nationalist and co-author with Chou En-lai of the five points of mutual co-operation with the Chinese people. Nehru said -

The Communist Party of India has, during the past year, adopted an attitude not only of open hostility to the Government but one which can be described as bordering on open revolt. This policy has been given effect to intensively in certain limited areas in India and has resulted in violence, indulging in murders, arson and looting as well as acts of sabotage. The House is well aware of the Communist revolts that have taken place in countries bordering on India. It was presumably in furtherance of the same policy that attempts were made in India to incite people to active revolt.

As far back as 1949, this great man, this great Indian nationalist, put his finger on the root of the whole problem - a problem that is still with us today. Any honorable member opposite who fails to recognise this is simply purblind or is seeking electoral advantage. Which it may be I do not know, Sir. In neither event does he serve the interests of his country.

We face serious times. We are at the crossroads. If we do not take a stand now, it may be far too late to take any kind of stand subsequently. It is now obvious for all to see that we face naked Communist aggression. Anyone who says that the war in Vietnam is simply an internal conflict is either a rogue or a fool. This is a peculiar phenomenon. It is difficult to see why this nightmare should be darkening the world at present. We must ask ourselves why this phenomenon is presented to us. I believe that if we do we can see that the basic cause clearly lies in Marxism itself. As we all know, Sir, except in the minds of certain honorable members opposite Marxism is a demonstrably fallacious political philosophy. It is full of self contradictions. For example, the inherently evil doctrine of dialectical materialism is in conflict with the similarly fantastic doctrine of the inevitability of gradualism. These are mutually exclusive. Yet the Marxists apparently believe in both.

These doctrines are the product of a tortured mind that was riddled with hate. Marx developed these philosophies because he hated society as it then was. He first formulated the answers that he wanted and then invented this nonsense to fit those answers. The fact that some of the material that he used and some of the material that he devised partly fits the facts - in his time it fairly convincingly fitted in with some existing facts and appeared to prove certain of his points - in no way detracts from the fact that his doctrines are demonstrably false and are in fact just fantasies. Indeed, I wish that Marxism could be taught in the proper context in all our schools so that our school children could see it clearly for what it is before they became enmeshed in its toils, for Marxism admittedly exerts an extraordinary fascination on some minds. I believe that if our school children could be shown the weaknesses and fallacies of this evil doctrine before being caught up in its toils the country would be done a great service. For this reason, I wish that Marxism, in its proper context, were a compulsory subject in our schools.

Once converted, the Marxist is faced with a fascinating prospect. Evil always has its excitements and Marxism has its fair share. It is anti-Christ. In fact, it is opposed to all religion and that means that no limitations are imposed on its followers. Morality becomes something bourgeois. The Marxist can and in fact does lie, distort, murder and terrorise to achieve his overriding objective of world domination, lt is interesting to note that Marxism did not spring from the downtrodden people. It did not spring from the masses themselves. I am not confusing Marxism and Socialism and I do not want to be misunderstood on this score, but I point out that Marxism, and Socialism also, were fathered by intellectuals and often the very rich. The overriding idea that has permeated both these philosophies is that the masses do not know what is good for them, that they cannot see for themselves what is to their own advantage and that consequently this must be imposed on them by a central ruling junta. Then, in the case of Marxism, they must conform or else, lt is interesting to note that one of the basic attitudes that permeates both Socialism and Marxism is that the man in the street does not know what is good for him and that those ideas that are supposed to be good for him must be imposed on him by a small, tightly knit central clique. It is for this reason that we have directing the actions of honorable members on the other side of the chamber 'the faceless men, some of whom have more recently been called witless men, though I believe incorrectly. It is a facet of Socialism that the centre of gravity of government moves outside the legislative chamber to a small centra] economic planning council which determines these matters. This is an inevitable trend under Socialism. In fact, the party opposite was trying to achieve this before the people booted it out of office in 1949.

I see that time is running out on me, Sir, and I shall be unable to develop my theme fully. I should just like to point out that a cynical imperialism has been grafted on to Marxism in both Russia and China. Between the two wars, we witnessed the spectacle of sincere Marxists overnight having to make an about face and adopt a complete change of front with respect to their policies and ideas to suit not the fundamentals of Marxism but Russian foreign policy. Though Russia is now contained, this is still going on in China and its satellites. Vietnam, of course, is a textbook example of Chinese imperialism run rampant. The fighting in Vietnam has followed the textbook pattern imposed by Mao Tse-tung. After the successful conclusion of the conflict in which North Vietnam became a Communist satellite, the first to break the Geneva Agreement were none other than the Communists. They have continued to break the Agreement since. Despite this, more than 750,000 North Vietnamese have found their way south to freedom.

This struggle is going on in Asia and we are in the forefront ®f it, Sir. The Leader of the Opposition says that we are fighting an unwinnable war. If that is the case, we have lost everything and no honorable member opposite need think that he or his family will survive this conflict. Just as genocide wiped out the effective numbers of Tibetans, if we in Australia become subject to Communist domination genocide will wipe out all of us. We must fight and we must fight now before it is too late, Sir. I heartily support the action of this Government in ensuring oar future safety and liberty as well as that of the free world.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Suggest corrections