Britain And Australia, The Fall Of Singapore And The Great Betrayal In 1942 And Onwards

One of the important characteristics of international relationship is the ability of one country to trust the word of their partners that their partners would look after the best interest of their partners, especially after mutual action plan is being executed and undertaken. There is the proverbial thought about how political bed partners involved in global country alliances are expected scratch each other’s backs.The failure of a partner to look after and protect the interests of the other partner is a very strong incident that easily breaks the trust that binds countries together in friendship, cooperation and alliance. One of the significant setbacks of Australia during the Second World War was the fall of Singapore after the British forces, which Australia trusted to protect this Asian country from being overrun by the enemy. The prevailing feeling that surfaced after the incident was made public was the feeling of betrayal among Australians towards Britain and the Britis h army.Even disregarding the fact that Singapore is an important foothold in the Australian dominion, Australia felt betrayed because they were sent to fight in another location under Britain’s bidding to salvage an important British interest with the guarantee that British forces will look after Australian interests in the Asia-Pacific Region. It was something which they failed to do in a manner that did not provide the British with even a semblance of consolation, just mere indignation over what happened.Britain’s surrender at Singapore in February 1942 can be considered as tantamount to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire because many critics and historians believe that Britain simply betrayed Australia when the British forces surrendered at Singapore at during the Second World War, considering that the same level of justification of the idea of betrayal was attributed to the concept of the â€Å"Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire†.Karl H ack provided a scathing verdict on the Singapore 1942 issue between Australia and Britain, supporting the belief of political analysts and historians who believe that Britain’s action in Singapore in 1942 was indeed an act of betrayal towards its ally Australia. â€Å"In one sense the fall of Singapore had represented a betrayal of Australia, and so catapulted Australia into an American embrace . Hack’s position in this issue was that the British act of betrayal towards Australia’s dominion in 1942 is the contribution towards the loss of one of Australia’s important foothold in the Asian region. This is because the British poorly and inadequately attended to the military concerns involving the defense of Singapore, explaining that â€Å"Britain had encouraged Australia to commit forces to the Mediterranean, and then provided inadequate defences for Singapore . †Gerhard Weinberg made the same observation about the question of British betrayal of Au stralia, explaining that the betrayal is found in the inability of the British to come to the aid of the country which is its ally in its time of need, especially with the fact that there was an understanding between the two nations about the providing of support and assistance; Australia can help the British military strategy and at the same time provide ample and sufficient forces that can protect Australia as well as Australia’s other footholds and territories in the Asia-Pacific region. In both Australia and New Zealand, the war had somewhat similar repercussions.Both felt deserted by the home country in their hour of greatest danger; it may be an exaggeration, but not a completely unjustified one . † Singapore fell on February 1942, but as early as January, the Australian government has already impressed upon its British allies that they would consider the fall of Singapore, which was under their watch, as an â€Å"inexcusable betrayal. The telegram that travelled from Australia to London indicated how Australia was hoping that Britain would indeed hold true to its promises and â€Å"all the assurance we have been given ,† including an solid fortress that will wait for the arrival of the British fleet that will support land efforts to defend Singapore . This telegram was received by Winston Churchill, the contents of which something that Churchill was not very happy or appreciative to read or be the recipient of such note.The reported efforts of the British to save Singapore from falling (including the sending in of the 18th Division) was later regarded as a wrong move for the British, definitely unmindful and not caring anymore about the idea of betrayal that Australia might feel. â€Å"The phrase ‘inexcusable betrayal’ greatly annoyed Churchill, and he could not easily forget it.The minutes of the British War Cabinet’s meeting, which reviewed events the day after Singapore's surrender recorded that it now seemed a pity that Britain had sent the 18th Division to Singapore . † With this information, can it be now assumed that the British leaders during the war indeed betrayed Australia by showing very little consideration or little cause of concern for the interest of Australia and were just focused on winning their own goal?If this was true, then the Singapore debacle was similar to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s empire, since in both occasions, the similar idea was that Australia was abandoned by its ally Britain and left close to being helpless, defenseless and alone. This is because it trusted an ally that was not sincerely looking and protecting the interests of its allies which it relied for help during the height of the battles in the Asia Pacific Theater of Operation during the Second World War.Churchill’s oversight in what was poor defences set up in Singapore one month prior to the fall of Singapore and the planning to evacuate and not fortify the defences we re also pointing to the fact that the British was not planning on holding on to Singapore, not even for the sake of the country’s alliance with Australia, to which Singapore and its defense is important. â€Å"At this late stage, Churchill now gave urgent consideration to the evacuation of all the Allied troops at Singapore to prevent what could now be foreseen as widespread disaster†¦Any evacuation of Singapore would have appalled Australians; indeed it would be difficult to exaggerate the effect to national morale of such an apparent betrayal . † The idea of selfishness and being self centered by the British military operation in the Asia Pacific during World War II that resulted to the idea of Britain’s betrayal of Australia in Singapore and in the whole of the Asian WWII conflict was also supported by other instances that saw Britain manipulating Australia and its resources without any consideration to the Australian government, the Australian sovereign ty and the Australian interests.Hamill talked about the incident wherein the returning Australian divisions from the Middle East was redirected, without approval from Australia, to Rangoon where Britain was hoping to save its interests in Burma, which was foiled since Australian Prime Minister Curtin directed the troopship to head straight for Australia instead . The presence of the sense of betrayal by Britain of Australia as a consequence of the 1942 Singapore debacleThe justification of the feeling of betrayal of Australia by Britain can be found in how analysts try to put together actions of both countries in international organizations involving the two. Most of the time, analysts point to the reason that Australia cannot again fully trust Britain especially when concerns involve security and military owing to the presumed betrayal by the British of its Australian allies in Singapore in 1942. For Australia’s resort to the 1951 ANZUS Pact has sometimes been seen as a deci sive turning away from Britain, the result of British betrayal at Singapore . † Critics believe that actions particularly that of Australia was always towards the minimalization of dependency on other countries, or forging alliances with countries except Britain. â€Å"ANZUS symbolised Australia's new-found willingness to enter agreements which excluded Britain . †The feeling of betrayal by Britain of Australia has an effect that rippled all the way across towards the more contemporary times. While some believed that the memory of the betrayal of Britain of Australia and its territorial interests in the global stage, there are also those who used the idea and feeling of betrayal of Britain of Australia as a rallying point for Australia to justify the movements that it is making today, pointing to a decision making paradigm that highlights important historical notes as a guide towards future political actions.One of which is the lesson of the betrayal and what Australia seeks to gain, and lose, when it trusts Britain again. The betrayal somewhat became an important cornerstone towards the growth of Australian nationalism in the country, among its people and its political leaders. â€Å"Keating’s parliamentary speech accusing Britain of betraying Australia at Singapore in 1942 displayed with dramatic clarity the influence of Jack Lang's aggressive Australianism . Oddly, when the news of how the Australian prime minister poked at the British government fifty years later about the betrayal in 1942 during the visit of the Queen of Britain, the focus of the news content was about how the Queen was treated disrespectfully, the news hardly making effort to defend the country from the accusations and was merely outraged by the scandalous treatment of their Queen. â€Å"The London tabloids are in a frenzy over Mr.Keating's charge that Britain abandoned Australia during World War II ,† while others took the instance to make political appraisal of Paul Keating, saying that â€Å"In his seemingly off-hand remarks about the monarchy and his tilt at Britain’s alleged betrayal of Australia in 1942, Paul Keating is moving to place himself firmly in the tradition of the great Labor Party nationalists†¦ nor has he forgotten Britain’s alleged sins of 1942 . †While some historians do not actually support Britain when it comes to the issue of the Singapore debacle in 1942, these writers also try to put into consideration the contribution of Australian forces defending Singapore, particularly the aspect of Australian desertions at the height of the efforts to save Singapore from Japanese forces and the number of surrendering Australian soldiers who easily surrendered and gave up the defense of Singapore.â€Å"Some British historians questioned the performance of Australian troops in Singapore†¦ hether Singapore could have been saved as late as 15 February, and whether Australian desertions accelerated the final surrender . † But some historians believed that the emotional repercussion resulting from the collapse of Singapore, particularly the feeling of betrayal, was not a very important issue at all, since the most important concern of Australia was not really the fall of Singapore but the fact that the Japanese forces are inching closer and closer to Australia. â€Å"Though these incidents created great ill-feeling at the time, the lasting damage done to Anglo-Australian relations was small.The differing reactions of Australia and New Zealand to the collapse of the Singapore strategy stemmed in part from the more immediate danger which the Japanese line of advance appeared to present to the Australians . † CONCLUSION Was Britain’s action in Singapore an act of betrayal tantamount to the concept of Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire? It looks like this is just the one and only time that the Australian government felt they were betrayed by Britain th at resulted to the loss of their former empire.If such was the case, then it can be argued that the Singapore collapse by Britain was indeed tantamount to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire. But as what information from related literary sources reveal, historians and politicians chose to attack Britain solely for the Singapore oversight and misdeed. It was rarely pointed as the turning point for the crumbling of the empire, or was the action synonymous to such similar vein of thought or idea.But at some degree, the proposition of similarity in the aspect of betrayal can be accepted, and can also be argued against as well. The act of betrayal by one country towards another country especially in time of dire need, like in times of war, is something which maybe heavily discussed and analysed in many different history books. But this does not mean that it makes it easy to identify if there was indeed an act of betrayal and which country was guilty of such act of betrayal.Fo r one, the concept of betrayal is very subjective and is very difficult to objectify since it is difficult to define a socially accepted concept of betrayal, given the existing situation. The resources and options available and the considerations that decision makers have to make upon reaching the decision which was to be the root of the controversy on the act betrayal. Secondly, the aspect of ethnocentricity will often eclipse or seriously affect the objectivity of historians and book authors tackling about this particular World War II issue.There will be Australian writers and historians who will insist that their country was indeed betrayed at Singapore in 1942 and that the action was tantamount to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire. While on the other hand, there will be British historians and writers who will say otherwise, that the British military action in Singapore in 1942 happened as it is after careful consideration of important priorities that somehow superc eded whatever it is that other people felt was left high and dry during this particular episode in the relationship of Australia and Britain.There will also be comments, analysis, comments and discussions about Britain’s actions in Singapore in 1942 and the possible interpretation of such action and how it is similar and leading to the Great Betrayal of Australia’s Empire coming from historians and writers who are neither British nor Australian, attacking the issue from a neutral standpoint sans the impact and effect of the sense of national pride or indignity and social justification.These were reflected earlier in the paper, as the paper, in the effort to discuss the different important sides of this issue, provided several different ideas about the issue lifted from related and credible literature. In hindsight, what can be deduced is that there was no shared opinion about how this particular event would be assessed and remembered.The split in the opinion about the presence of the act of betrayal hinged largely on the fact that neither the British nor the Australians would yield with regards to this particular issue, each country standing firm about its position that it did everything that was necessary to preserve a much greater goal and to achieve a more important objective.

Case Analysis Nike the Sweatshop Debate

CASE ANALYSIS NIKE THE SWEATSHOP DEBATE Summary of the Facts Nike was established in 1972 by former University of Oregon track star Phil Knight. †¦ Nike has $10 billion in annual revenues and sells its products in 140 countries. †¦ Nike has been dogged for more than a decade by repeated accusations that its products are made in sweatshops where workers, many of them children, slave away in hazardous conditions for less than subsistence wages. †¦ Many reporters, TV shows, companies and organizations have repeatedly exposed negative comments towards Nike. For example, a â€Å"48 Hours† news report aired on October 17, 1996 regarding a Nike factory in Vietnam, which was visited by reporter Roberta Baskin. The reporter discovered that Nike hired millions of workers who are literate, disciplined, and desperate for jobs at wages lower than minimum wage. Another example of the criticism against Nike came from a newsletter published by Global Exchange. The newsletter uncovered that the majority of Nike shoes were made in Indonesia and China, countries with governments that prohibit independent unions and set the minimum wage at rock bottom. †¦ In September 1997, Global Exchange published a report on working conditions at four Nike and Reebok subcontractors in southern China. †¦ In November 1997, the organization obtained and then leaked a confidential report by Ernst & Young of an audit that Nike had commissioned of a factory in Vietnam owned by a Nike subcontractor. †¦ Nike formulated a number of strategies and tactics to deal with the problems of working conditions and pay in subcontractors. †¦ In early 1997, Nike also began to commission independent organizations such as Ernst & Young to audit the factories of its subcontractors. Finally, on May 12, 1998 Nike founder Phil Knight spelled out a series of initiatives designed to improve working conditions for the 500,000 people that make products for Nike through subcontractors. †¦ Even though Nike has admitted there have been problems in some overseas factories and has attempted to do things to rectify the problems, the company continues to be a target of protests and a symbol of dissent. Statement of the Problem On the May 12, 2001, Nike’s CEO Phil Knight made six commitments to improving the working conditions in Nike’s international All Nike shoe factories will meet the U.? actories. The six commitments were: The minimum age for Nike factory workers will be raised to 18 for footwear?†¦ Nike will include non-government? factories and 16 for apparel factories. organizations in its factory monitoring, with summaries of that monitoring Nike will expand its worker education program, making? released to the public. free high school equivale ncy courses available to all workers in Nike footwear Nike will expand its micro-enterprise loan program to benefit four? factories. housand families in Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Thailand. †¦ Nike has yet to hold up to these commitments they made to its workers and customers. Nike continues to be criticized by human rights organizations and the media because they have ignored demands that labor and human rights groups have requested. †¦ Causes of the Problem Nike has treated sweatshop allegations as an issue of public relations rather than human rights. †¦ Nike has not released documentation to date of their reports from the working conditions in the factories. .

Irony in Nadine Gordimer’s “Once upon a time” Essay

Once Upon a Social Issue Fairy tales have always been told to us as children; whether to comfort or entertain us, they always seem to be a part of everyone’s childhood. â€Å"Once Upon A Time†, the title is a characteristic of a fairy tale, but she leads the story to an ending that is anything other than â€Å"happily ever after† (Gordimer 12). Although Nadine Gordimer’s title is typical in a fairy tale in the story â€Å"One upon a time†, the story she writes is anything but typical. Instead of dealing with characteristics and synonymous with fairy tales, the author uses irony to reflect the idea of humans leading into their destruction. Because the story about the happy family is as far away from a fairy story as it can be. She uses sentences as â€Å"living happily ever after†, the title â€Å"Once upon a Time† and words like +witch† (Gordimer 12) to imitate a story for children, but this is not a fairytale. This is a story ab out the social injustices between people and the injustices in which we see in the world. Gordimer is not trying to write a story for children. She uses the fairytale-like language to clarify the irony in the story. One of the more interesting examples of irony I found in the text was where the author wrote â€Å"Consult DRAGON’S TEETH The People For Total Security†¦ One evening, the mother read the little boy to sleep with a fairy story from the book the wise old witch had given him at Christmas. Next day he pretended to be the Prince who braves the terrible thicket of thorns to enter the palace and kiss the Sleeping Beauty back to life: He dragged a ladder to the wall, the shining coiled tunnel was just wide enough for his little body to creep in, and with the first fixing of its razor teeth in his knees and hands and head he screamed and struggled deeper into its tangle. The trusted housemaid and the itinerant gardener, whose ‘day’ it was, came running, the first to see and to scream with him, and the itinerant gardener tore his hands trying t o get at the little boy†. When it says â€Å"DRAGON’S TEETH† it reminds me of a fairy tale. Usually in fairy tales  The story involves an upper class woman, generally a princess or similar high-ranking nobility, saved from a dragon, either a literal dragon or a similar danger, by the hero (in this case the little boy pretending to be a prince). After the mom reads the boy a story of saving the princess through thorns, which in this case is the barb wire from the company â€Å"DRAGON’S TEETH† (Gordimer 14) the boy kisses the girl and brings her back to life. This fairy tale is ironic because usually fairy tales end happily while this fairy tale is a more realistic fairy tale. The story’s first paragraph starts with family existing by a man, his wife, their grandmother, and their son. They live in the suburb, in a city, in South Africa under the apartheid system. The separation between blacks and whites are huge, and every family in the suburb is secured in any possible way. No one from the outside is allowed in. Even though the husband keeps telling his wife that â€Å"these people were not allowed into the suburb except as reliable housemaids and gardeners, so there was nothing to fear† (Gordimer 12), the family keeps developing their safety equipment, in case something could happened. The irony is that the family has no idea what is happening outside the fence. They call them â€Å"these people† (Gordimer 12) as if they don’t even know that they look like. Gradually they add more protection to their home as their fear grows. Ironically, the protection they install boomerangs back and kills their son. The story’s second paragraph also portrays a perfect family taking all the normal precautions to keep them safe. â€Å"It was not possible to insure the house†¦against riot damage†(Gordimer 12) tells us that they were not able to protect themselves from everything and the repetition of â€Å"YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED† (Gordimer 12) tells readers that this story is in fact warning them that with each move they make they build their own prison and bring on their own destruction. As well as the sign â€Å"YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED† wasn’t just ironic but also has significance of foreshadowing by making an effort to continue to make their house safe, they brought it upon themselves that such misfortune should happen. There is also a mention of an intruder on the sign. By the end of the story, we realize this intruder does not have to be a person at all but could be an internal intruder in our lives. In the case of this family, the intruder is their inability to pay attention to the important things in life and just barricade themselves from others. Irony adds to this final effect in that everything the parents do to protect their  home becomes useless. The gate speaker is used by the boy as a walkie-talkie. The alarm is set off but no one cares. The high wall is mocked by the cat jumping over it. The ultimate destruction of this is their own son’s death. In the story, â€Å"happily ever after† (Gordimer 12) is constantly repeated which is ironic because they live in an injust society. This family is forced to keep to their own house and be scared for their lives, yet they are living â€Å"happily ever after†. The fact that the housemaid is the loyal one in the story is also ironic because stereotypically house workers are deceitful and try to steal their employer’s belongings as well as the housemaid is weeping and crying while the parents show no emotion. The biggest irony of â€Å"Once Upon a Time† is the child getting hurt by what was to protect him, especially since bed time stories and fairy tales are supposed to end happily. In conclusion, the most important element in the story is irony, which is used to reflect the idea of humans leading into their own destruction. And although this story seems to be a fairy tale, Gordimer makes it so that the irony leads to a completely different perspective on the story. Keeping in mind all these precautions/things the characters thought they would die without, bring on terrible misfortune, where the theme sends a very powerful message as well. In reality, many people are obsessed with protection and security. While they forget that being too paranoid can result in danger. Works Cited Gordimer, Nadine. â€Å"Once upon a time.† Pre-AP English 9 Supplementary Readings: Prejudice and Social Inequity. Milton: n.p., 2012. 12-14. Print.

Country Studies Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

Country Studies - Essay Example The invasion led to the devaluation of the Iraq currency, which sent away the investors who had invested in the desert country. The depreciation of the currency led to the withdrawal of support from international bodies2. The invasion also confirmed to the world that the country was unsafe for inhabiting. This process made the products of the country have very low value to the international community while the international commodities became expensive. It caused an economic crisis. Additionally, this led to a long period of economic recovery. The US in conjunction with the UN undermined Iraq’s international image. The negative signal of terrorism associated the whole country with terrorism, while a small section of the country was affected by the aspect of al-Qaeda3. Iraq was also destabilized because the nation’s dictatorial leader was ousted and hanged. This cut links the leader had established with the nation’s allies to the detriment of the Iraq nationals. The reign of dictatorial leaders is better than instability. The political and economic instability caused by the US was costly to the

Hausman and McPherson discuss Larry Summers's memorandum Essay

Hausman and McPherson discuss Larry Summers's memorandum - Essay Example Even though Summers and Pritchett argued the â€Å"aside† on the memo as a sarcastic inference, the â€Å"aside† generated worldwide uproar and criticisms. In the book Philosophy of Economics, Hausman and McPherson debate the Summers Memo, lamenting the idea that health-impairing pollution could not be promoted or shifted to LDCs. This paper discusses one of Hausman and McPherson objections to summers arguments. In the essay ‘The Philosophical Foundations of Mainstream Normative Economics’, Hausman and McPherson suggest that the three paragraphs in Summers memo presented a scientific argument while the last paragraph highlighted moral objections. However, according to Hausman and McPherson, the entire â€Å"aside† was essentially a moral argument, which is significant to the relationship between market evaluation and welfare. By isolating welfare and preference satisfaction, and then leaning on the relationship positive economics establishes between preferences and market prices. Consequently, the Summers memo established a link between premises regarding costs and demands and conclusions regarding the specific outcomes that augment welfare (Hausman and McPherson 233). According to Hausman and McPherson the uproar instigated by the Memo signified objection to its conclusions. On page 232, they outline five objections discussing why the World Bank should not encourage the migration of pollution to LDCs. The first objection states that encouraging ‘dirty’ industries to shift to LDCs might cause more total pollution. Specifically, compared to LDCs, industrialized countries have better incentives, superior administrative ability, and extensive resources to implement pollution regulations. The second objection is that even though individuals in the industrialized economies and LDCs would agree to the migration of pollution to the third world in exchange for suitable compensation, the exchange may be discriminating. Notably, in such an

Counterargument description Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

Counterargument description - Essay Example They also state that institutional trust is learned earlier on in life and then later projected towards these institutions. Media ownership has always been said to influence what is produced from the company. If a certain media house suffered a deal towards a certain company, it will be supposed to always have that negative attitude towards this institution. Journalism culture is also said to contribute to attitude. In this case, there are some cultures that exhibit negative journalism while others do not. Basing a counterclaim on the four factors that lie as a basis for the weak claim, economic performance has always been used as a basis for effective performance. This however is not supposed to be a claim to victimize a company. There are several causes of poor performance apart from the financial aspect. Economists would claim that prevailing market conditions would render a public company unable to perform effectively. Moreover, most media houses are always divided on what defines a good institution. Some may claim effective human resource system while others may claim good salaries. There are also some public institutions that purely depend on financial support from the government. Such institutions cannot be declared poor performers on this basis. Interpersonal trust is not a purely universal aspect of relationship. One journalist growing up with an attitude about an institution does not make all journalists view the same institution as he is doing. That would give a negative culture in the journalism of that particular society. It becomes unprofessional to make general conclusions based on individual experiences (Hanitzsch & Berganza, 2012). There are different media reports that support this counterclaim. Julian Assange, the CEO of the whistle blowing WikiLeaks brought up several accusations about very many

DB7&8 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words

DB7 - Essay Example It should not be the case where trainers boss trainees around rather than that, they should interact as friends and knowing one another by names. Studies have shown that even a simple thing like addressing trainees by name boosts the relationship between them and the trainer (Wexler& Garry 2002). When dealing with a conflict involving trainees, a trainer has to come up with several strategies to solve it. In this case, the best conflict manager always comes out with a perfect way to stop the conflict and make sure that it may never happen in future. When solving a conflict, the trainer is supposed to be of sound judgment and be as fair as possible. This can only be achieved if the trainer is following the proper conflict management strategies. On the contrary, I experienced one incident where the trainer would shout at the trainees who were conflicting and order them stop and be friends or else he would expel them. My suggestion to resolving such a conflict will involve listening, understanding and trying to resolve the conflict. First and foremost, listening involves summoning both trainees and let them narrate their side of story. In line with that, a trainer should also ensure the other trainer is listening; this way he is sure they are communicating on the same page. After both trainees have narrated their stories, make it clear that you are there to help resolve the conflict. It is important for the trainees to understand that you don’t have a magical solution to their conflict rather you are there to help them find a solution. It is important to make sure that you maintain your objectivity even when you know 100% that it is trainer B that wronged trainer A. jumping to trainers A side will make trainer B feel like you are both ganging against him/her (Wexler& Garry 2002).. Maintaining the calmness is vital: Anger blurs ones judgment. In other words since both parties are angry and maybe almost