Australia in the First Half of the 20th Century - Essay Example

Australia in the First Half of the 20th Century A land-mass country with no boundary of other countries sets Australia apart from other areas in the pacific region and other nations. Blessed with its bounty of the bush, it cannot be argued that Australia had a lot to offer in the world’s economy in the first half of the twentieth century. Its richness of materials with high economic value had attracted powerful other countries to invest and be a part of its unique and strategic geographical location. This proves that even amidst its remoteness in boundary of neighboring continents and other nations on the globe, Australia had been a key player in the making of history. It had played significant role that is uniquely vibrant Australia as written in history. The making of Australia which was heading to be as it was in the first half of the twentieth century would have never been possible if not of its British influence which was obtained from its mother empire, Great Britain. It cannot be argued that there was willingness in the part of Australia to embrace dependent relationship within the British Empire. Its best option was to rely on its British Empire so as to survive and not lost its identity. It can be noted that Australia did not seek independence from British control but Britishness was embraced in order that it can have its identity (Evans et al. 1997). Dependence of Australia on its ‘mother country’ lies in the fact that it had to establish its cultural influence and economic and security link (Morkel 2001). This was for initial survival that for over the span of time was the foundation of Australia in its establishment. From a dictionary definition, dependence is synonymous to reliance, trust and subordination. Within the course of Australian history, its reliance to the power of Great Britain meant power, security and survival in its end. It ended up to a deeper trust and mutual agreement which Australia had to take, for collaboration with Great Britain in their quest to conquer the other part of the globe. Australia’s active participation in Britain’s quest to win the world can be clearly manifested in its participation to world wars. The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps day or also known as ‘Anzac’ day is a national celebration in Australia that is viewed sacred and also an act of heroism (Inglis 1997). This only signifies the impeccable support that Australia was willing to give for its mother country. As part of its subordination to mother country, Australia never condemned Britain for their quest to dominion over the world. Australia’s external relation with Britain can be summarized by their closeness and broad political consensus to assist each other when at wars and maintaining such economic security and stability (Attard 1999). However, this did not last long for some various reasons. As pointed out by Attard (1999), distance, environment, social and economic development and external pressures did mean that Australians were developing a distinct and separate sense of rational identity and interests. These factors were instrumental to the shift of Australians’ way of thinking during the first half of the twentieth century. These factors were substantial enough to trigger conflict of interest between Australia and its mother country. After all, it can be clearly understood that Australia’s ultimate goal was survival and thus, it was clear that it was consistently looking forward to its national security. With this way of thinking and high level sense of nationalism among Australian leaders, it can be remarkable that they had just significantly executed what was needed to be done. This was clear when Britain could no longer underwrite Australia’s economic development in 1930s. Australia had to go for pragmatic response amidst changing circumstances. It had to stand on its own now. It was not a declaration of independence, but Australian leaders had just to respond to changing circumstances as part of their preserved higher sense of nationalism. The bottom line of this was that Australia never remained dependent to its mother country. It started to adapt its own national economic advancement and strategies. It is important to think of it that even the two countries are known to have closer tie and absolutely homogeneous orientation at some point, Australia cannot be dependent forever to its mother country. Great Britain had to look forward for its own interest. When Britain failed to send fleet to Singapore, so as not to involve itself in either a European or Asian war, this was just a single manifestation that it had its own interests that need to be protected which at some point, will come in conflict with the national interests of Australia. From the stand point of Ryser (1992) on his article about “Balancing Relations between Nations and States in New Era”, he simply stated that political, social, economic and strategic clashes between nations contribute to local and regional instability. He further emphasized that similar conflicts between nations and states directly affect local, regional and sometimes global stability. They were allies, and this cannot be denied in the case of Britain and Australia. Though being dependent to Great Britain, Australia was given the right training to decide for its own while maintaining to be a loyal dominion to its mother country. It is due to this training of acting for independence was Australia able to manage to stand on its own. This could mean further that it managed to head to its own political, social, economic and strategic actions as part of its obligation to its people. It can substantially be considered that Australia got much of its characteristic from its mother country. Its higher sense of nationalism is a mere fact that will bring Australia to a more advance nation in the pacific, which can also make or destroy in a certain level. Thus, it is now going to be a question of balancing act that had to be seriously undertaken. Let us try to take a look at this in Japan-Australian relationship in the early half of twentieth century. As explained in the book of Hirst (2001), Australians believed that as citizens trained to lead and control, they can be much superior to any other races or traits. Thus, the only way to preserve Australia from any form of impurities can be best executed by implementing a special identity for Australians through the legislation called “White Australians policy” of 1901 to 1973. Unfortunately, Japanese can be screened out in this policy since it was believed that they can be a threat to Australia’s security and underlying superior culture. After all, Japan was momentarily rising. In this policy, impurities due to multiculturalism can be screened out and future national conflict of interest be prevented. The implementation of “White Australian” policy was a justification of Australians’ higher sense of nationalism. Its underlying principle was to generally protect national interest. However, as cited in the article of Lake (2005), Australians in the late twentieth century are heading to multiculturalism as their country’s core value. To wit: 1. Australians believe that Australia could incorporate different people from different places. 2. The Colombo Plan was inaugurated to promote cordial relations with Asia. 3. Promulgation of the policy of multiculturalism by both the Whitlam Labor and Fraser Coalition. 4. And more… However, just prior to this cultural discrimination in the early half of twentieth century, more significant aspects can be told about Japan-Australian bilateral relationship. As documented in the website of Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DAFT) (2006), there was a significant distance between Japan and Australia that can be considered cultural, administrative, geographic and economic. 1. In a bilateral relationship, cultural distance involves such level as different languages, different ethnicities, lack of connective ethic or social networks, different religions, lack of trust, lack of trust and different values, norms and disposition. 2. The administrative distance involves such level as lack of colonial ties, lack of shared regional trading bloc, lack of common currency and political hostility. 3. The geographic distance involves such level as physical distance, lack of land border, differences in time zones and differences in climates, disease and environment. 4. The economic distance involves such level as rich-poor differences and other differences in cost or quality of natural resources, financial resources, human resources, infrastructure and information of knowledge. As early as the later half of nineteenth century, Japan already found its way to Australia. The first recorded import of Australian coal by Japan was in 1865. In 1901, it cannot be denied therefore that Japan was one of the largest trading partners of the newly-federated Australia. In 1930, Japan was the third largest trading partner of Australia. However, Australia implemented a trade diversion policy which had limit import from Japan, as part of western sanctions in response to Japanese abrogation of the naval arms control treaty. Led to an uneasy settlement, Japan was restricting imports from Australia as part of its retaliation. Now concerned about its security, the Australian Government in 1938 banned iron ore exports after Japanese companies had secured the rights from the West Australian Government to mine and exports iron ore from Yampi Sound. Then in 1941, the Trade was suspended when Japan entered the Pacific War. Under controlled arrangements, Australian companies were allowed to trade with Japan in 1947. In response to balance of payments problems, Australia imposed import restrictions on imports from all countries, but the tighter controls imposed on Japanese goods in 1950 caused a dramatic reduction in imports. Clearly, with a bilateral relationship among them, Japan and Australia had to come into a point of conflict while trying to protect their individual national interest. The significant distance that can be considered cultural, administrative, geographical and economical had contributed to the gaps and conflicts after all. As mentioned earlier, Japan was significantly rising within the first half of the twentieth century. This had posed a threat to Australia after all. Hence, the implementation of policies were evidences of administrative regulations so as Australia will continue to hold its economic and political power in the region. Australia can be noted by its culturally motivated decision. After all, it was evident that the pattern of investment created by Australia to Japan was different from Great Britain as its mother country and to which both cultures are built with proximity. The period of 1930s was very crucial to Australia for this time, not much of support was obtained from Britain. Thus, for Australia to survive, it needed the presence of Japan. Economically speaking, the two countries had to realize that they need each other since each of their interest complemented each other too. Thus, economic barriers or gaps must necessarily be set aside or to the extent be eliminated. Another powerful friend of Australia in the first half of twentieth century was the United States of America. Just like its proximity in culture with Great Britain, Australia was never been too far from America despite geographical distance. Soon after the attack in Pearl Harbor in 1941 and realizing that the Great Britain was pre-occupied in Europe, Australia shifted its focus and its defense priorities were now with the United States. It is worth to be remembered that Australia in nineteenth century was strong in its stand on the definition of itself amidst changing circumstances. In fact it can be traced back that Britishness has something related about culture, power and a new sense of responsibility in Australian citizenship. The British Australians believed on their superiority. That superiority, they believed, sprung directly from the advanced qualities of their British stock, a nation of people historically molded to expand, lead and control (Hirst 2001). As a result of this feeling of Britishness amidst cultural diversity due to continuous existence of Asians and Aborigines, a new general set of standard was implemented in early nineteenth century in order to preserve national ideologies and principles which can be viewed purely as a new Australian way of life. ‘White Australians’ comes out after a successful power perpetuation of the British colonizer in Australia which the main goal is to preserve the new Australian way of life, supremacy, ideologies, culture and national solidarity. British Australians believed that as citizens trained to lead and control, they can be much superior to any other races or traits and thus, the only way to preserve their nation from any form of impurities can be best executed by implementing a special identity for “White Australians”. In this way, impurities can be screened out. In the event that non-white people cannot be infiltrated, this may possibly lead to other culture influences, sharing of wealth, and the bottom line, inferiority of the Australian way of life. However, some evidence suggests that Australia was momentarily Americanized after world war two. This would conflict to its goal towards creating its own identity that is purely Australian way of life. From the article of Bell and Bell (1996), it can be quoted that many commentators, from Austria to Australia, have argued that the “Americanization” of popular culture after 1945 was the principal, even the necessary, precursor to the “principal, military and economic success of the United State in the “Cold War”. Americanization of culture can be the best strategy of the United States in perpetuating its power to different allies or nations which it considered fundamental to its growth and success as a nation. Australia was fundamental to the growth of United States in the pacific. After all, Australia was one among the popularly rising countries in the region amidst its “Great Depression” in the nineteenth century and early years of the twentieth century. To strengthen this claim, Bell and Bell (1996) further sited that given its geographical homology, European migration, military alliances, and modern suburban consumerist culture, the Anglophone, strategically insecure Pacific continent was arguably less ambivalent about Americanization and more open to it than were other Western nations. Their article pointed out based on some existing writings of Australia as “more vulnerable” to “Americanization” than any other country. Australia was under diverse or sudden change of direction in the first half of twentieth century. As a country trained to be powerful, this transitory period was crucial to its established culture, economic and political power. In this period of transition, there were conflicts that needed to be exceeded to reach its potential and survive as a nation with unique identity from its mother country. However, in order for it to survive, Australia had to be a part of the world and in fact, its major roles in world wars were manifestations of how this country can be potentially powerful in the end. From its humble beginning up to as being recognized friends or allies of powerful nations, Australia had significantly and successfully separated itself from the dominance of Great Britain. REFERENCES Attard, B 1999. ‘Australia as a Dependent Dominion 1901-1939’, viewed 5 April 2009, Bell, P and Bell, R 1996. ‘ Americanization: Political and Cultural Examples from the perspective of Americanized Australia’, viewed 5 April 2009, Read More