Australia’s attitude to foreign aid had changed quite a bit over several decades and is now focused on pragmatic considerations of national interest rather than the greatest need. After examining some of the history of Australian foreign aid I will consider the greatest need argument and explain why it is not necessarily the correct moral response to need. I will conclude by arguing that a special relationship exists between Australia and its immediate neighbours which, while not negating claims of greatest need, does need to be factored in utilitarian moral considerations.
Foreign aid refers to the economic or military assistance given by one country to another (Firth 2011: 290). The practice of foreign aid began in the aftermath of the Second World War as a way to help rebuild Europe. From the very beginning, however, aid was not a purely altruistic endeavour as the United States of America (US) needed a strong Europe to continue to purchase its exports and therefore keep the US economy going (Firth 2011: 286). As a result of the aid, Europe flourished, and so did the US economy. Foreign aid today continues to primarily be political and promotes the interests of the country
…show more content…
I claim that it is in fact the moral thing to do as Australian has a unique and special relationship with, and responsibility to, its immediate neighbours. Australia is far more fortunate than its neighbours (Firth 2011: 283) and has a responsibility to help as an economically strong and successful country in the region. If spending foreign aid locally has other benefits for Australia such as security or commercial contracts then that should judged as a bonus, not as the primary driver. The moral case for regional assistance is more powerful and more
The author uses patriotism as a technique when stating, “There was a time when it would have been unthinkable for Australians to stand by while an elected government physically and psychologically mistreated people whose only crime was to arrive by boat without an invite.” By criticising his target audience, he appeals to their sense of patriotism in a pursuit to make them feel guilty. This argument is connected to Letch’s illustration in the top left corner, which features a figure holding a sign, which reads ‘GO BACK’. Gittins provided his target audience with a visual reference on his argument by showing Australia as the villain with a frowning and disapproving facial expression and the refugee looking upset sitting in a puddle of water with his head down. In relation to the mistreatment of welfare precipitants, the author uses the technique of mocking when he referred to the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull as “Mr Harbourside Mansion” to provide a preliminary opinion before stating his argument.
In terms of the USA perspective, they thought we were not doing enough; less body count and different tactics. However from what one can observe from the facts, a logical conclusion would be that Australia in fact were definitely doing enough, and definitely made an impact. This links back to Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War, as ‘the lucky Country’ played a crucially significant role, and the statistical research simply proves the statement is definitely
Before 1914 Australia had had very little experience of warfare. They had supported Britain in previous conflicts in New Zealand, Sudan and during the Boer war. Seeing as Australia was still very much connected with Britain during the time, when war was declared on Germany on the 4th August 1914 Australia was ready to fight alongside their ‘mother country’. The main reason that Australia was part of World War 1 was because of their loyalty to Britain.
Australian History SAC Plan Divisions in Australian society virtually disappeared during the crisis of World War I. All were united in a common cause. To what extent do you agree with this statement? “Australia will rally to the mother country to help and defend her to our last man and our last shilling”. On the eve of total war, then-opposition leader Andrew Fisher rallied the new nation around those words.
During World War 2 the Australian prime minister, John Curtin, called on America for help. This speech will present evidence to prove the hypothesis: the social benefits of the Americans being deployed in Australia outweigh the negative social impacts. This will be done by addressing 3 main focus questions. These questions are: when and why did the American troops come to Australia? How did the Australian society benefit from the American presence?
Australia’s international relationships had a significant impact in World War 2, and this was because of Australian’s security was threatened by Japan, because Australia was sacred of Britain not doing a great job helping us against Japan, so there was one chance to save them and that was to call America for help. When a number of Australian troops returned from the Middle East after John Curtin ordered them to complete an action in Syria. This led to a bad relationship with the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, because Britain want Australia to help them in the war against Germany. As all Australians knew Britain were the ‘mother country’ they will help them but John Curtin went against the partnership with Britain and want to defend Australia, not send all troops to Britain. Curtin invited the Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, Douglas MacArthur to help out Australia for the Japanese invasion which made drastic change in Australia’s relation with Britain and USA.
Australia got involved in Vietnam in an attempt to stop the spread of communism in South Vietnam and protect is position in the Asian Pacific; this is a key event in Australia’s history as it changed the course of Australia’s allegiances and almost lead to warfare on Australian soil. Though relating cause and effect by using numerous historical sources I will assess the key reasons why Australia got involved in the Vietnam War. Robert Menzies parliament address in 1965, an article from The Conversation describing the events 50 years later as well as multiple extracts from “Contested Spaces” by Thomas Cantwell and key extracts from the History textbook all illustrate the main reasons why Australia was keen to get involved in the war in South
Australians could have treated Vietnam Veterans better if they had been given the same resources as veterans in World War I and II, providing mental and physical support for the veterans. Another thing we could have done to help the Vietnam Veterans was to acknowledge and respect what they had gone
The Bombing of Darwin, which occurred on February 19, 1942, was a significant event in Australia's history. The attack, which was carried out by Japanese forces, resulted in extensive damage to the town of Darwin and the loss of hundreds of lives. In this essay, I will explore the background to the bombing and the impact it had on Australia's involvement in World War II. The bombing of Darwin took place just over two months after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, which had drawn the United States into the war. The attack on Darwin was part of a larger Japanese campaign to establish a stronghold in Southeast Asia and to cut off Australia's supply lines to the United States.
The Cold War began around the time the wartime confederation between the United States and the Soviet Union broke down, during the years 1945 - 1950. The battle between the two dominions, communism and capitalism, battle for more than 40 years. The Cold War essentially began with empty threats about bombing each other with weapons including nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles resulting in nothing but a game of I guess you can say “one on one basketball”. There were two sides to this war the entire time but the main countries that were battling was the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States, along with Canada and ten other nations of Western Europe, signed a treaty known as the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) in 1948.
Not only the war had a massive effect on the Indigenous in Australia, The war was a huge boom to the Australian economy and as it turned out another massive factor. As many Australian fundamental products were purchased as could be produced, and secondary, subsidiary industries manufactured many ‘modern’ items for the services. Many men and women retired and fled their careers to accompany the armed forces leading to a ‘deficit’ of labour. New commerce and businesses need to have been created to fund the troops with combat weapons, uniforms and ammunition. Scarce goods needed to be controlled by the Australian Government in enhancing better buying and selling and in ensuring that everyone received a fair share.
Chris McCandless was in his early 20’s, he was the kind of that guy that wanted to learn and experience life without all of the material things. He wanted to be independent from his parents and friends so Chris did something that would be insane for most of us humans but to him, it wasn’t. He went into the wild of Alaska for months, in fact, McCandless even thought he could make it out alive at the end of his journey. As a matter of fact, he was known as being a risk taker and enjoyed being out and about in the nature side of the world. Many would believe that Chris McCandless went into the wild to purposely kill himself; however, I myself believe that McCandless did not do it purposely.
Australia’s response to AIDS differed from other countries because rather than immediately blaming groups, such as gay people and drug users, Australia attempted to educate these groups to prevent the further spread of AIDS. Australia made an attempt to not ostracise these people from local communities, and did not make rash decisions. For example, gay people were not banned from traveling in and out of the country, and
An Australian Republic is about us — not the Queen, not Prince Charles or the world economy. We should do it now, without delay. As Nelson Mandela once said, “ For to be free is not merely to cast off one 's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.” Until we break our last Constitutional links to the mother country, our nationhood is incomplete. Now after just over 115 years of Federation, Australia must finally join the world of nations as a full equal, unshackled to any other nation.
During the next 20 years’ Australian citizens grew to consider themselves separate from ‘Mother Country’ making Australia a nation in its own right. This line of thought lead to people questioning if it was still acceptable to give everything they had for Britain. In particular, was it sensible to join a war no matter what the cost to