B 20004 D iULLETIN OF THE ANTIBOLSHEVIK BLOC OF NATIONS World Anti-Communists Meet I )l. XVI • No. I January - March 1965 - Verlagspostamt: München 8 CONTEXTS: Sir William Teeling (Great Britain) The Strength Of Communism In B rit a in ................................... 3 General Harry G. La Brum (USA) Captive Nations — America’s True A l l i e s .............................. 5 Ivan Matteo Lombardo, former Italian Minister Despite Boom — Italy On Strange P a t h ................................... 7 Brigadier General ]. D. Hittle (USA) We Must Win In South V ie tn a m ................................................. 9 General Roman Shukhevych — Taras Chuprynka.................... 11 Dr. D. Donzow (Ukraine) A Warning From The G ra v e ...................................................... 12 Tenth Conference Of Asian Peoples’ Anti-Communist League 13 Nixon Against Neutralization Of V ie tn a m .............................. 17 Resolution On Soviet Russian Colonialism And The Liberation Of Subjugated P e o p le s................................................................ 23 Declaration Of The Tenth Conference Of The Asian Peoples’ Anti-Communist Leag ue................................................................ 24 Jorge Prieto Laurens (Mexico) Liberty For Political Prisoners Of Cuba Demanded . 29 Hon. Cornelio T. Villareal (The Philippines) Struggle For Mind And H e a rt...................................................... 30 Hon. Kh Cheng-kang (National China) Cooperation And Unity Of Free Countries Required . 31 Jaroslaw Stetzko’s Farewell Speech At The Parliamentary Banquet In National C h i n a ...................................................... 32 Prof. Birger Nerman (Sweden) Sweden — A Neutral Country Between NATO And The Warsaw P a c t ............................................................................... 33 O b itu a r y ......................................................................................... 37 Paul Poljakov (Cossackia) Picture on the cover: Perception From The W e s t ........................................................... 38 Presidium of the 10th Con- "The Daily Telegraph" On Russian Im perialism .................... 40 ference of the Asian Peoples’ ABN Activity In A u s tra lia ........................................................... 43 Anti-Communist League, American Friends Of ABN M e e t ............................................ 45 Taipei, November, 1964. A White Ruthenian Voice In The International Forum . 47 In the chair: Mr. ku Cheng- kang, President of the League “ecenf Docum entation................................................................ 54 for 1964. B o o k-R eview s............................................................................... 61 ÆÆM Publisher: Press Bureau of the Antibolshcvllc Bloc of Annual subscription DM 12.— in Germany, 6 Dollars Nations (A.B.N.) in U.S.A., 12 shillings in Great Britain and Australia, and the equivalent of 6 Dollars in all other countries. Munich 8, Zeppolinstr. 67 Remittances to: Post office Transfer account: Munich 58 000 or Deutsche Bank, Munich, Filiale Depositen­ Editorial Staff: Board of Editors. kasse, Neuhauser Str. 6, Account No. 307 430.(A .B.N .), Editor responsible: Mrs. Slava Stetzko. or Bankhaus Otto Dierks & Co., Munich, Marienpl. 20, Account No. 2313 Articles signed with name or pseudonym do not necessarily reflect the Editor's opinion, but that of the author. Manuscripts sent in unrequested cannot be Erscheinungsort: München. returned in case of non-publication unless postage is Herausgeber: Presse-Büro des Antibolschewistischen enclosed. Blocks der Nationen (ABN), München 8, Zeppelin­ straße 67/0, Telefon 4410 69. It is not our practice to pay for contributions. Schriftleitung: Redaktionskollegium. Verantwortlicher Redakteur: Frau Slawa Stetzko. Reproduction permitted but only with indication of Druck: Buchdruckerei Erich Kirmair, München 12, source (A.B.N.-Corr.). Westendstraße 49. Politics And Concience In our addled times, the question of the relation between politics and morality may call forth, from some readers, a condescending smile, if not a peal of laughter. In our present-day political life, crimes and injustices have reached such a degree, that a reappraisal of the concept of politics from this perspective may be worth some reflection. The nature and purpose of politics has been variously defined from different angles and different times. A familiar saying tells us that politics is the art of the possible. But here it is simply a question of the demarcation between realistic politics and political dreaming — or rather, the setting of impossible goals. For a Machiavellian, for example, power not only means the dogma of poli­ tical functioning, but also a categorical imperative for international legal, as well as diplomatic, relations. This view of politics, even in our own brutal times, cannot reckon with general acceptance without further ado. There have also been times when the barbarous law, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” was accepted for human as well as for international relations: times when the victors treated their captives according to the maxim vae victis, with complete self-assurance. The mention of a few of these diverse usages, however, is not to be interpreted as an idle escape into the past, nor merely as reminiscences of a historic nature. They have been mentioned owing to their special application to our own present- day politics. For even today there are examples enough of well-known personalities in both political and cultural life who, in the name of peace and justice, gallantly step forward again and again to speak up for the preservation — indeed for the eter- nalization — of the discord in the world and the crying injustices practised against entire peoples. A typical representative of this attitude is a man who has the reputation of being a leading humanist in the field of literature and is at present a lecturer on international law at a German university. Ex cathedra he resolutely represents, for example, the “progressive” view that, once and for all, the thought of chang­ ing the status quo in the present world situation must be dismissed, even if the existing conditions are found to be unjust and intollerable by some sides. One is by no means at a loss to substantiate this Machiavellian conception. To this purpose, a large store of historical knowledge is brought forth to strengthen the thesis that in the course of time, some injustices in the past have had a very beneficial effect on the future. Upon this thesis is based the argument, that the present status quo could very likely set up international law norms for the future. The long and short of this attitude, with reference to the present world political problems, is clear. Individuals and peoples should, in our — ah, so progressive — times, reconcile themselves willy-nilly to their present lot, and every desire for the protection of inalienable national interests should be given up. According to this view, even the barbarous Russian-Bolshevik system, which holds every moral law in contempt, inasmuch as it tramples inalienable human rights and national interests underfoot, should be unquestioningly accepted as a kind of historically 1 necessitated natural phenomenon. Everything else is accounted for in terms of “historical evolution”, which will take care to polish off a few sharp edges to bring about, with time, a grand synthesis between freedom and slavery. To this, one can only exclaim: sancta simplicitas!, whereby, however, it is still an open question wheter these illuminated spirits are really as simple-minded as they appear, or whether they are consciously contributing to the annihilation of freedom and all the moral values of the Western world. With this question we have reached the medias res: in actual practice, how can politics and morality really be applied together? Is it not perhaps a hopeless undertaking even to consider politics and morality in the same context? In view of this sceptical question, it can only be hoped that not all who have preserved a moral conscience and are inspired, precisely in the field of politics, to see ethical values realized, have died out. One must not necessarily be a Kantian to believe in the categorical imperative of the Koenigsberg philosopher, nor must he belong to the neo-Kantians to acknowledge himself, just as before, a believer in the validity for moral values, precisely in the field of “practical reason”. Even if one feels called upon to disown the existence of absolute and univer­ sally valid moral laws, one should not, even in our “modern times”, shut one’s eyes to the knowledge, that in certain periods of history and in the realm of entire cultural circles, which, at times, embraced whole continents, there are binding moral laws and ethical values, the realization of which, is, or at least, should be, the highest law of any politics. At one and the same time this assertion represents the only fitting definition for all political activity and designates, from a historical point of view, the final aim of all politics. To reject this basic law means to deny the value and meaning of every human society, to renounce the values that make life meaning­ ful, and to open all doors and gates to a bottomless nihilism. According to con­ temporary reference books, the latter is also called existentialism. No matter how few of those who believe in politics as a calling may be left in our times, the day will yet come when politics will return