Effects of World War II - Essay Example

Effects of the World War II on the outlook and political aspirations of indigenous people in Australia and the Pacific Rim Name: Institution: Tutor: Date: There are several indigenous tribes in Australia and these tribes also formed part of the country’s’ military force that fought for the country during the Second World War. These tribes included the Aboriginals, the Torres Straits Islanders. A person was not assumed to be of indigenous heritage because of their bloodline alone but one had to satisfy certain conditions for them to be said to be indigenous. First of all a person had to identify with the Aboriginal or the Torres Strait Islanders. Secondly the person had to be a descendant of the Aboriginals or The Torres Strait Islanders. Finally the person had to be an accepted member of either the Aboriginals or the Torres Strait Islanders. Australia was one of the first countries to get involved in the World War II and governing authorities in the country made deliberate efforts to ensure many of the indigenous Australians were involved in the war. This at first seemed rewarding to the indigenous people as they were being offered an opportunity for a better life in addition to the monetary rewards that came with joining the service. As time went on this exercise proved to be discriminatory as the Aboriginals who refused to work for the services were forcefully recruited hence depriving them of their rights and freedoms. Aborigines who served in the army were also discriminated against while still in service and on enlistment some of them claimed to be from different backgrounds such as Maori to avoid having their rights deprived due to their indigenous backgrounds. Many of them were not eligible for pensions as a result of them being Aboriginals (Darryl, 2000).The Aboriginals tried to ensure protection of their rights through formally recognized groups such as the Australian Aboriginals League (AAL) which proposed granting full rights as citizens to those Aboriginals who served in the military. Later on in 1939, Aboriginals hardened their stand that they would not enlist without being granted full citizenship. They had had nothing to fight for as they were not considered full citizens and could not claim to be fighting for their land on the contrary they were fighting to defend a land that had been forcefully taken from them without any form of compensation. Despite this assertion, some Aboriginals and Islanders still went ahead and enlisted (Eric, Jetly, & Nancy, 1999).There was introduction of legislation that removed racial limitations on the people that enlisted in the army for instance the Defense act 1903 -1939 only required that those serving in the army be British subjects but it did not place other additional racial limitations. However the same act restricted people from non European descent to non combant roles. While this seemed to protect the lives of the indigenous recruits, it still brought up the notion of full citizen rights and privileges as they were not granted combant rights as the other citizens. There was hope that victory in the war would give a voice to the indigenous people as a result of them having fought side by side in the war. There was outcry from the public such as Aboriginal political organizations, welfare groups, some government departments and an organization for the soldiers who had returned from war regarding the subject of Aboriginals enlisting to the war. Much of the outcry focused on the Aboriginals and Islanders were already serving in the army. They argued that a lot of soldiers of indigenous origin who have been wounded or killed in the war had proved themselves to be capable soldiers. Theses organizations continued to pile pressure on the government until it finally caved in and on August 1940, the policies were reviewed by the military board. The review however also had some discriminatory undertones in that it required a medical doctor to prove if a person was significantly of European descent. The medical doctors were to be guided by the individual applicant’s suitability and other laws of the territory from which the enlistment was being done. This resulted in the acceptance of aborigines who were considered to be white under the statute (Darryl, 2000). This was discrimination against the ‘full bloods’ aborigines who due to the nature of their skins’ appearance they were not considered white. The statute resulted in them not getting future admission but those already in the service were to be left untouched. This was both contradictory as it was discriminatory as there was no point in granting the aborigines their rights and then inserting discriminatory clauses within theses rights. Though sufficient for the time being this review was not to stand the test of time. The indigenous people were out to ensure full and unconditional protection of their rights and privileges and with this statute, this was far from getting achieved. The war ended in 1945, and with this end emerged renewed efforts to have the rights Aboriginal former service men enforced. There were renewed calls for granting them citizenship and easing of controls over their lives. The government on its part argued that no ‘full bloods’ had been enlisted and served while the half castes had already been granted the right to vote (Aggarwal, Vinod & Charles, 1998). It was later on in 1949 that legislation was put in place by the commonwealth that entrusted them with this right to vote regardless of where they had served and whether their discharge was honorable or not. This was finally recognition for the part the aborigines had played in defending their nation and it was a step in the right direction. Large numbers of indigenous Australians both men and women were involved in the war either directly by joining the service or indirectly through working for industries that were involved in the war for instance industries that were dealing in the manufacture of ammunition. Many indigenous Australians were able to be trained for the war, got paid and engaged in other social activities which they previously never took part in. Up until this time many non-indigenous Australians had previously never had any real contact with aboriginal Australians and thus this period during the Second World War represented a big turning point in the lives of the indigenous people. This exposure by the indigenous people to newer ways of doing things was not only limited to the non – indigenous Australians as they were exposed to other people to (Staffan, 1986). For instance they interacted with the American troops during the war and got to a chance to be exposed to new values such as the American great values of civil rights among other things. In New Zealand there was a different approach in accommodating their indigenous population in their country during the war. New Zealand considered it necessary to include their indigenous population in their armies from the start for instance the famous 28th (Maori) Battalion. Unlike in Australia where the Aboriginals were not recognized even after the war, the Maoris’ relations with their Pekeha counterparts greatly improved after the war and their input during the war was highly recognized and appreciated. They gained respect from the Pekeha and this ensured their place as part and component New Zealand. Before the Second World War, many of the Maori lived in isolated regions in New Zealand in areas such as Bay of Plenty and the East Coast. The war thus had a consequence of giving the Maori and their Pekeha counterparts a chance to live together side by side for the first time in their history. It brought about the aspect of equality and a sense of national identity among the Maori. Also within the 28th battalion, the unity of the Maori among themselves was fostered as they put aside their differences and came together from all over the country to fight side by side (Aggarwal, Vinod & Charles, 1998). Despite the accolades that they received for their service, the Maori veterans came back to a racially divided country. After the war , they still continued to be subjected to racial discrimination, unfair government policies and lack of adequate opportunities leaving doubts as to whether the efforts they put in the war was worth it. The Maori people might not be able to specifically point to any rewards or benefits as a result of their participation in the war but looking at the bigger picture, there are some positive things that can be attributed to their war activities. First of all their profile in life as part of New Zealand has been raised. Their population is no longer declining nor is their race dying (Darryl, 2000). In Indonesia, there was discrimination against the West Papuans. The people of West Papua fought during the Second World War for the values that their country stood for but they continue to be discriminated against up to the present day. They are yet to see the fruits of their labour for the input they had during the war. The free Papua movement that was banned in 1963 was formed to protect the domination of West Papua by Indonesia (Staffan, 1986). This movement claims that Indonesia aims at eliminating their Melanesians culture and thus the efforts of Indonesia to bring about social, political and economic integration in the region are just a front to eliminate their culture. The movement has employed the use of guerilla tactics to fight the Indonesian army and has managed to inflict some casualty so far but the army has responded with excess force resulting in civilian casualties. There has been indiscriminate bombing of villages and imposition of curfews in villages and in towns. Up until world war, international law was developed to handle issues relating to the colonisation and to deal with disputes arising between the European colonial powers. Thereafter the international law was molded by the world wars which were primarily European wars based on the European politics. Consequently, the international law ended up being a representative of the European politics. Bearing this in mind, laws dealing with indigenous rights did not have a place in international law and any reference made on their rights was a manipulation by the colonial powers to justify the activities that they were doing on the indigenous peoples’ land. There were attempts to secure the just treatment of indigenous people by the colonial powers but no legitimate efforts were made to secure their rights (James, 1994). For instance there was the League of Nations Covenant that required members to secure the right treatment of the natives in the land under their control but this had an effect of validating the colonial occupation rather than ensuring the rights of the indigenous people are protected. Indigenous people were seen as wondering tribes who did not fit in the European idea of ‘society’ thus international law was deemed not to apply to them. Before the end of the Second World War, international law was used as a tool to justify colonialists’ activities and other aspects of colonization but after the end of World War II the colonized people sought to protect their rights and adopted the concept of international human rights law. They made efforts to access United Nations institutions to assert their claims in which they sought self - governance, autonomy and to have their rights protected. The indigenous people mostly focused their assertions to have their rights recognized and independence on the principle of self governance. After Second World War this principle was enshrined in the international law. It sought to give people the right to self – determination and this right was to be enjoyed by all people. As a consequence of this right all people had the freedom to determine their status in terms of politics, social development and also their economic status. This principle formed the basis of the new world order (Darryl, 2000). The indigenous people had thus entered a new period of enlightenment whereby they were well aware of their rights and were making deliberate efforts to ensure that all these rights were being protected. In the new world the European powers were losing their domination of international law as more and more of their colonies were seeking self – determination. The framework of self – determination was mainly in countries where the majority of the population was colonised but it did not apply in situations where the colonised people were the minority among the population. In Australia many of the indigenous people including the Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders were not included in this framework. The law stated that ‘ all people had the right to self – determination’ therefore these law was being subverted by denying the indigenous Australians this right as they were within the definition of the word people but they were not enjoying this right (James, 1994). The indigenous people were actually exercising self rule within their context as they already had systems of governance and ways of ensuring law and order are maintained but this was only within their context and not officially recognized by the law. The Aboriginal and the Torres Strait being the minority had a difficult time to in enforcing their rights as a result of them being small in number consequently they had to seek other avenues to ensure that their rights, autonomy and self- rule are protected. The indigenous people in Australia and the Pacific Rim still continue to struggle with the protection of their rights even to this day (Witte & Green, 2011). They still struggle to fit their claims within the statute which requires them to show evidence of that their territories have strict and defined boundaries which will be hard to prove since most of their land was stolen by the Europeans in the process of colonizing them. The United Nations Charter sought to protect the and respect the principle of self –determination, autonomy, political and social independence within the framework of a territorial boundary, thus the nomadic nature of indigenous people in Australia resulted made it difficult to enforce this law as their territories were not defined within this framework (James, 1994). Through their efforts to ensure their rights are protected despite their nomadic nature, the indigenous people got the International Court of Justice to declare that the nomadic nature and other traits of the indigenous people that did not conform with the conventional norms and practices should not be used as an excuse to deprive them of their rights and privileges that they s should enjoy as a people thus effectively recognizing their rights as a people. Despite this declaration by the ICJ, the rights of indigenous people continued to be ignored and they come up with other ways of enforcing their rights in the international law especially the right to self – determination. One of the ways was to have them defined within the law as indigenous people. This declaration aimed at formally recognizing them as a people and ensuring that they enjoyed the rights and privileges that came with this definition (McKernon, 1942). The other strategy they applied was the changing of the notion of ‘self – determination’ by broadening the interpretation of this word to include their ideas on this principle and having them being included in the definition within the law. Indigenous people in most countries including Australia continue to have their rights subverted majorly due to the fact that they are the minority and the fight for the protection of their rights and privileges will still go on for quite some time but the Second World War had a great impact in the lifestyle they live today. References Adam Shoemaker. (2004). Black words, white page: Aboriginal literature 1929-1988. Sydney: ANU E Press. Eric, Jetly, & Nancy. (1999).The Dynamics of South Asia: Regional Cooperation and SAARC.New Delhi, Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications. Aggarwal, Vinod & Charles, M. (1998). Asia-Pacific Crossroads: The Regime Creation and the Future of APEC. New York: St. Martin’s Press. James, C. A. (1994).Sea Change: Pacific Asia as the New World Industrial Center. New York: Free Press. John Witte, & M. Christian Green. (2011). Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction. London: Oxford University Press. Keith Suter & José Ramos-Horta. (1997). East Timor, West Papua/Iran and Indonesia. California: MRG. Staffan, B.L. (1986).The Pacific Century: Economic and Political Consequences of Asian-Pacific Dynamism .Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Darryl, S. L. J. (2000).International Relations and the Challenge of Postmodernism: Defending the Discipline. Columbus, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Ernest et al. (1928). The Outlook. California. Outlook Co. M. McKernon. (1942). All in! Australia during the Second World War, The Australian Bureau of Statistics. Read More