Citizenship
Controversies
Conscription and Conscience
The purpose of this week's study
is to examine in principle how far citizens have a duty to undertake military
service and when they have a right to refuse to bear arms. Here we focus primarily
on how these issues have arisen in Australian history. We will consider how
republican and liberal beliefs influence government policy on defence in general,
and how these two strands of thought have both had some influence in Australia.
Australia was unusual among English speaking countries in introducing compulsory
peace time military service before the First World War influenced by the republican
ideal of the citizen soldier. On the other hand, although Great Britain and
the USA had exempted certain religious groups from military service, in 1903
Australia was the first country to pass a national law recognising the principle
of individual conscientious objection. When you have completed this week's work
you should have some understanding of the following:
- How republicans and liberals view
the relationship between citizenship and military service;
- How service in wartime both reflects
and influences the standing of groups excluded from full citizenship rights
- we look at the position of women and Aborigines in Australia;
- Why liberals are much more sympathetic
than republicans to individuals claiming conscientious objection to military
service.
The other goal for this week is to understand
the special features of Australia's defence policy and of its debates about conscription,
which have been influenced by its earlier colonial status and links to the British
Empire. For example, the opposition in Australia to compelling conscripts, and
even professional soldiers, to fight overseas reflects this history.
1.Defining
Military Service and Conscientious Objection
Before examining republican and liberal
views of military service and conscientious objection,
and the history of both in Australia, we should clarify the different forms
military service can take and the arguments for each. Then we shall explore
the meaning of conscientious objection. There are three basic models of peace
time organisation for national defence:
- professional permanent forces
- a citizen army
- a cadre-conscript army
The first model calls for a professional
highly trained military: a permanent army, navy and airforce composed entirely
of those who choose to make a career in the services. (Retired members of the
armed forces then provide a reserve in case of emergency.) Professional forces
are often supplemented by volunteer part-time soldiers. This is a liberal model.
The second model, at the other extreme,
depends upon a 'citizen army', which is non-professional and which is made up
almost entirely of men (and possibly women) in civilian jobs (though there is
usually a small core of professionals). A citizen army requires universal military
training. Switzerland provides a well known examples of a citizen army (Roberts
1976). This was the ideal influencing the Australian Labor Government before the
First World War, when it introduced compulsory part-time training of all boys
and men in 1911. This is a republican model.
In between these two extremes is the
'cadre-conscript army', where professional services are reinforced by peace time
conscription of young men. Australia introduced compulsory registration and short
term (6 months) military training in the armed services in the period 1951-59.
The combination of professional forces and conscripts can be justified in liberal
states on grounds of military necessity. But countries like France have appealed
to republican arguments for citizens in arms.
In wartime there is usually a need for
extra troops. These may be volunteers, like the Australians who signed up willingly
to go to Gallipoli or to France in World War One. But even liberal governments
tend to opt for conscription in major wars, as the Australian Government tried
to do unsuccessfully in World War One.
Women have occasionally been conscripted
in wartime into noncombatant and civilian service - as in Britain and (effectively)
in Australia in World War Two. They also voluntarily did a great deal for the
war effort in most countries in both World Wars. Although women have quite often
fought in guerrilla armies, only the Soviet Union sent women into battle in the
regular forces in World War II. Israel is unusual in conscripting women for military
service in peace as well as war, but since 1948 they have not served in combat
positions.
There are three kinds of conscientious
objector:
1.Those who refuse in all circumstances
to bear arms or kill another human being, but are willing to play a part in
wartime and to assist others to fight, for example through medical service,
or in communications or administration - i.e. non-combatant duties;
2.Those who refuse both to engage
in actual fighting and to assist others directly to fight, but are prepared
to be conscripted to help the war effort indirectly in a civilian capacity,
i.e. they are prepared to undertake alternative service;
3.Those who refuse to offer any
assistance to the military and the war effort, and who oppose the principle
of the government compulsorily enlisting people to do military or civilian
work. These are unconditional objectors. Some unconditional objectors may
be draft resisters, who refuse to cooperate at all with the process of registration
and refuse to apply for CO status. They may be socialists, resisting capitalist
or imperialist wars, or anarchists, refusing to recognise the right of what
they see as an oppressive state to regulate their lives. But draft resisters
may simply be committed to active opposition to a particular war they believe
is unjust, like the Vietnam War.
The reason why many governments are
now prepared to recognise the right of individuals to refuse to fight is because
they accept that some people are pacifists, who have a strong moral objection
to bearing arms and do not believe that being at war justifies killing even enemy
soldiers. But since there are many reasons why people might want to escape military
service, governments passing laws, and tribunals judging specific cases, have
required good reasons for accepting that an individual has a sincere conscientious
objection to taking part in war.
|
STUDY EXERCISE 9.1
Read:H. Smith, 1989. Conscience,
law and the state: Australia's approach to conscientious objection since
1901. Australian Journal of Politics and History 35(1): 13-16.
Answer the following questions:
1.What category of persons were
granted exemption as Conscientious Objectors (COs) under the Australian
Defence Act of 1903? Answer
2.Give examples of those who
would fall into this category. Answer
3.What were the 3 changes significant
for COs in the 1910 Defence Act? Answer
4.Why were the first 2 changes
in the 1910 Act in line with liberal beliefs? Answer |
Two key problems in appealing to conscience
are:
- defining what is meant by conscientious
belief, and
- agreeing upon how conscientious
belief can be proved.
| STUDY EXERCISE 9.2
Read:H. Smith, 1989. Conscience,
law and the state: Australia's approach to conscientious objection since
1901, pp. 19-21.
Answer the following questions:
1.What were the key elements
in a conscientious belief identified in the quotation from Justice Windeyer
on pp. 19-20? Answer
2.What would count as evidence
that a belief is, in Justice Mason's words, 'deep seated'(p.20)? Answer
3.What did the judges think
is the relationship between reasoning and conscience? Answer
4.What was the reasoning of
the courts on whether the length of time a belief is held be crucial in
determining if it is held conscientiously? Answer
|
2.Citizenship
and Military Service: The Civic Republican Approach
At this point we will consider briefly
the origins of the republican view of the citizen soldier in Greece and Rome,
and at the evolution of republican thinking about military service and citizenship
in Europe to today. You learned in Study Week 2 that the Greek city states from
500 to 300 BC and Roman Republic, from about 400 to 55 BC stressed that citizenship
is a privilege, which demands loyalty to the city. Citizens had a duty to take
part in politics and primary to be trained and ready to fight.
Machiavelli writing around 1500AD
in Italy took the Roman Republic as his ideal partly because of its good laws
and the good character of its citizens. Whilst Machiavelli argued that the Roman
religion taught men to be good citizens, military discipline played an important
role in creating men who were brave, vigorous and self-disciplined. Machiavelli
argued passionately that the Italian city states should create citizen militias
instead of relying on foreign troops, who could be used to undermine political
independence, or on mercenaries - soldiers who fought for anyone for pay them,
and were unreliable.
Machiavelli's emphasis on patriotism
and the citizen soldier was echoed by Rousseau in some of his writings. He criticised
the lack of political freedom and sense of citizenship under the French monarchy
in 18th century France and called for a simpler and more healthy society and politics.
In commenting on a new constitution for Poland, Rousseau (1972:19) wrote: 'Your
true republican is a man who imbibed love of the fatherland, which is to say love
of the laws and of liberty, with his mother's milk'.
Since Rousseau there have been two strands
in the republican case for the citizen soldier. The first has stressed patriotism,
that dying for one's country is the supreme sacrifice and that a good citizen
is a good soldier, and may become linked to a nationalist view that puts the interests
of one's country above everything else. The second has, on the contrary stressed
internationalism. It has hoped for other countries to adopt republican principles
and to avoid wasteful and destructive wars.
In this second version of modern republicanism
a citizen army is a means of minimising the risk of war. By providing a solid
defence against invaders it deters attack, whilst providing no threat to other
countries. So national defence and international peace could both be achieved.
Moreover, if citizens are responsible for fighting and have political influence
over their governments, then republicans have often believed the citizen-soldiers
will only fight wars that are absolutely necessary. Moreover, they have feared
that a permanent military officer corps develops militaristic and anti-democratic
values and may threaten democracy at home and encourage warlike policies abroad.
These republican ideas have had some influence on socialism, and were popularised
by the French socialist leader Jean Jaures, who opposed the First World War and
was assassinated just after that war broke out.
In the 20th century only a few states
have maintained a strong republican view of citizenship, but there are still countries
where politics is influenced by republican values, and which have seen regular
military training as a central component of male citizenship. France began universal
male conscription at the time of the French Revolution and maintained it in various
forms almost uninterruptedly until in 1996 the government announced it would be
phased out. Switzerland provides the clearest case of a country which stresses
participatory democracy and expects men to be ready to fight for their country..
Countries with republican values have
also been reluctant to recognise conscientious objection. Switzerland did not
make any provision for COs until 1974. France jailed those refusing military service
for indefinite periods until, after sustained campaigning, a (rather restrictive)
CO law was passed in 1963. This contrasts with the liberal attitudes both to military
service and to conscientious objection dominant in English speaking countries.
For an up to date comparative study of conscription and conscientious objection
in France and English speaking countries see Levi (1997).
3.Military
Service and Conscientious Objection: The Liberal Tradition
Liberals believe that individuals should
have maximum freedom to choose their personal goals, life style and what values
they uphold. Therefore governments should only limit individual freedom in order
to protect the rights and freedom of others, or to preserve the society as a whole.
Liberal thinkers have therefore recognised that a primary role for governments
is to safeguard its citizens, by providing internal order through enforcing the
laws and by being ready to repel foreign invaders. These arguments are set out
by Locke writing in the late 17th century (Locke [1689] 1988).
The dominant view among 19th century
English speaking liberals was that defence should be provided by a volunteer professional
force. Individuals should be free to choose whether or not they contributed personally
to national defence and how they did so. But John Stuart Mill in his famous essay
On Liberty did recognise that citizens had duties and that governments
should use coercion in some cases, in particular for national defence. He also
stressed that the burdens of defence must be shared fairly. It is worth noting
that Mill was sometimes quoted in the Australian debates about compulsory military
training (Tanner 1980: 133). In his later years Mill suggests in some of his letters
and speeches that he had sympathy for the Swiss system of a citizen army.
Other English speaking liberal countries
in the 19th century were generally opposed to conscription. In the USA conscription
was only introduced for the period of the Civil War, when it was adopted by both
sides. Canada allowed for the possibility of universal military service in its
1868 federal militia act, but in practice relied on volunteers. We need to keep
this context in mind when considering Australian debates about defence in the
early 20th century.
When liberal countries have reluctantly
introduced conscription, they have been ready in principle to recognise claims
of conscience. In particular liberals are committed to respect individual religious
beliefs, and Britain for example had exempted Quakers from the militia acts in
the 18th and 19th centuries. But freedom of religion also implies the freedom
to have no religion and liberals have also been ready to respect strongly held
non-religious moral beliefs. Both the United States and Britain made quite generous
provisions in World War Two. Since World War Two willingness to recognise COs
has been related to the strength of parliamentary democracy and liberal respect
for individual conscience. Internationally there has been increasing willingness
to see conscientious objection as a basic right. The United Nations General Assembly
passed a resolution recognising conscientious objection in 1987.
4.Military
Service and Conscription in Australia
Australia's defence policy has taken
various forms since the founding of the Commonwealth in 1901. Despite the influence
of liberal values on Australian politics, there have been elements of compulsory
military training or service for significant periods. Compulsory part time military
training for home defence became law in 1909 and came into operation in 1911 and
continued until 1929, when a newly elected Labor Government stopped enforcing
this unpopular policy.
Conscription became an issue in war
time. Although there was opposition to the principle of compulsory full time military
service, the most divisive question was whether Australians should be compelled
to fight overseas. Even in the case of professional soldiers the principle was
maintained until the 1950s that only volunteers should be asked to fight overseas.
Resistance to sending conscripts outside Australia defeated conscription proposals
in two referenda in World War One. In 1939 the Government introduced conscription
for home service, but in response to the threat from Japan the Government was
able to extend the area within which conscripts were sent to fight to parts of
the Pacific. Conscription ended in 1945.
After the outbreak of the Korean War
in 1950 the Australian Liberal Government introduced legislation, passed in 1951,
requiring all young men to undergo 6 months military training in one of the armed
services, although army trainees after 3 months transferred to the part time volunteer
Citizen Military Forces. This system was modified in 1957, when it became selective,
and was abandoned in 1959 (Shields 1968: 68). It was understood that conscripts
would not be sent into active service overseas.
A selective system of conscription was
reintroduced in November 1964 and at that stage the Government legislated to send
conscripts overseas to fight in Vietnam. Selective conscription was legally abolished
in 1973. From the government's perspective, 1964 marked the end of the Australian
practice of maintaining two separate kinds of military force, one which could
only be used for home defence (although in the later part of World War Two the
rules were stretched) and those who were ready to serve wherever they were needed.
We will now examine the nature of Australian forces, the role of volunteers for
overseas service, and in particular issues of conscription and conscientious objection
in more detail.
(a)Before the
First World War
Australia's approach to defence has
been shaped by its colonial experience. Britain was responsible for defending
the colonies until the mid-19th century. After granting self-government Britain
continued to provide protection through its navy and troops, but after 1863 the
states took over land batteries and gun boats for coastal defence and began to
recruit local part time militia forces. In 1870 Britain withdrew its troops, and
the states then had small permanent forces commanded by British officers, in addition
to local part time militias.
After Federation in 1901 the Commonwealth
Government became responsible for national defence. The Minister of Defence introduced
a Bill providing for a unified military force, which would combine a small professional
force and a larger part time paid militia. The 1901 Bill envisaged that in a national
'emergency' (not clearly defined) all men between 18 and 60 could be called up
and that they could be sent overseas to fight. These provisions were bitterly
opposed, partly because it was introduced during the Boer War when thousands of
Australians were fighting in South Africa, and opponents feared that Australians
would be called upon to fight in all British imperial wars, from Afghanistan to
Ireland (Hirst 1993: 613). The Bill was not passed.
The 1903 Defence Act specified that
civilians should only be called up for military service in time of war, when they
would be serve in the militia, and that only those who volunteered to do so should
be sent overseas. The 1903 Act specified a very limited role for the permanent
professional force: coastal defence and military training. This force did not
include foot soldiers, who were to come from the militia. The Minister for Defence
noted in the 1901 parliamentary debates that citizen soldiers with limited training
were both efficient and economical, arguing that Australians fighting in South
Africa had won 'renown upon the fields of battle' (cited in Main 1970: 8).
It took longer to reach a decision on
Australia's naval force. The new Commonwealth took over from the colonies responsibility
for paying money to the British Navy to provide security at sea. By 1907 the Liberal
Government was arguing for an Australian naval squadron controlled by the Australian
Parliament, and a Labour Government passed a law creating the Royal Australian
Navy in 1911, which was to be a professional service.
The other major military innovation
between 1903 and the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 was the introduction
of compulsory military training in 1911 for boys and men aged between 12 and 26.
The training involved weekend drills. There was little opposition in Parliament.
But once the scheme was under way it was resisted by socialists, who argued that
it was promoting militarist attitudes in the young and discriminated against working
class boys who had to drill in their spare time (whereas wealthier boys drilled
in school hours) (Main 1970: 24). The Quakers were also active in opposing compulsory
training and played a role in setting up the Australian Freedom League in April
1912.
| Read:H. Smith, 1989.
Conscience, law and the state: Australia's approach to conscientious objection
since 1901. pp. 15-16. |
Note the restricted definition in 1909
of those entitled to claim conscientious objection and Smith's comments on the
provision that they would 'so far as possible be allotted non-combatant duties'.
See also Krygger's appeal to the High Court and the nature of Justice Griffith's
ruling. In the following reading, Stanley Benn provides a sceptical view of the
strength of principled opposition to compulsory military training.
| Read:S.I. Benn, 1967.
Conscription and conscience. pp. 67-8. |
Tanner (1980) notes that Australia was
the first English-speaking country in recent times to force young men to undergo
military training in peace time. Why, then, did the Australian Parliament endorse
the compulsory training scheme? It was influenced by W.M. Hughes and the Australian
National Defence League campaign promoting not a liberal but a republican ideal
of citizens in arms, which presented the training scheme as something quite different
from conscription. Hughes was strongly influenced by the views of the French socialist
Jean Jaures (see above) and by the Swiss model of citizens in arms.
The Australian Freedom League which
campaigned against compulsory military training adopted a broadly liberal position,
arguing that 'it constitutes a grave menace to our civil rights and religious
liberties, and that the Defence Act had become law 'without consideration and
consent of the people' (cited in Jauncey 1968: 69).
It is an oversimplification to see the
arguments on either side as simply expressing republican or liberal views. The
supporters of compulsory military training explicitly argued that what they were
defending was the White Australia policy (Main 1970: 24), and sometimes suggested
that Australia's territorial and racial integrity was threatened by the growing
power of Japan, or else by China. Opponents of compulsory military training drew
strongly on religious and liberal views, but some of their criticisms focused
on the unfairness of placing the burden on children who were not yet responsible
citizens.
(b)During the First
World War
When both sides became embroiled in
the debates about the introduction of conscription in 1916 and 1917, opponents
of conscripting men to fight overseas appealed to a wide range of political considerations,
not simply liberal claims for 'the rights of the individual and the limited nature
of civil obligations' (Main 1970: 3). Many of those who opposed conscription did
not oppose the war in principle. Indeed two of the arguments against conscription
were simply that Australia had 'done enough', or that the figures suggesting the
need for large numbers of extra Australian troops were wrong. Moreover Labor Party
members stressed conscription would impose an unfair burden on workers and could
weaken trade unions. Some suggested that it would lead to increasing the immigrant
labour force and could destroy White Australia (Main 1970: 3). After Britain crushed
the Easter Uprising in Ireland in 1916 the Catholic Archbishop Mannix of Melbourne,
a prominent opponent of conscription, also attacked British oppression of the
Irish.
In the next reading Benn summarises
the two referenda on conscription in 1916 and 1917. Note the reasons why each
proposal to introduce conscription for service overseas was defeated.
| Read:S.I. Benn, 1967.
Conscription and conscience. pp. 68-9. |
But there were those such as the members
of the Australian Freedom Leagues who opposed conscription in principle.
| Read:Australian Freedom
League. 1916. The conscientious objector and conscription. |
Even without any compulsion, about 331,000
Australian men volunteered to fight for the British Empire overseas. They joined
the newly created Australian Imperial Force. In the early years of the war there
was tremendous enthusiasm to enlist, leaving the public services, professions,
businesses and the outback farms short of men.
Australian nationalism has for a long
time been linked to the Anzacs heroism at Gallipoli, where Australian and other
allied troops landed on April 25 1915 to try to capture the Straits from the Turks.
In the 1990s, however, Prime Minister Keating rejected the symbolism of Gallipoli,
where Australian soldiers died on behalf of the British Empire in a mishandled
military campaign. Instead, he wanted to shift the focus to Australia's defence
of its own country against the Japanese in World War Two, for example, on the
Kokoda Trail in Papua New Guinea. Commentators suggested that Australia had made
a mistake in entering World War One on the British side, and should have remained
neutral. In the next reading, Carl Bridge comments on why Australians fought willingly
for the British and discusses whether the conscription referenda were really evidence
of opposition to the war itself.
| Read:C. Bridge, 1994.
The reason why: Australia and the Great War. |
(c)The Second World
War and the 1950s
When the Second World War broke out
the Australian Imperial Force was recreated and recruited volunteers to fight
overseas. Australian divisions fought in North Africa and Greece and Syria in
1940-41. The Menzies Government introduced compulsory military service in the
home-based militia in 1939, but in view of the Labor Party's continuing opposition
to conscripting Australians to serve overseas did not raise this issue. But after
the Japanese had conquered Malaya, the Labor Party agreed in 1942 to the Defence
Act being amended to allow conscripts to fight in defence of Australia in the
South-West Pacific and in 1943 the area was extended to the West Pacific.
Nearly 400,000 Australians served overseas
in World War Two in the wars against Germany and Japan, over 27,000 died, over
23,000 wounded and over 22,000 were prisoners of war who returned home (Weekend
Australian 12-13 August 1995: 6). The Second World War was widely seen on
the Allied side as an obviously just war, since the liberal democracies were fighting
against fascist powers who had committed aggression. It was also a war for defence
of Australian territory from 1942. It therefore had widespread support, especially
in the later stages of the war.
| Read:H. Smith, 1989.
Conscience, law and the state: Australia's approach to conscientious objection,
pp. 16-18. |
Smith points out the following aspects
of laws on conscription in World War Two:
- the changes in the Defence Act
of September 1939 and the implications for COs who were members of churches
which did not hold pacifist doctrines;
- the limited choice offered COs
and Labor Party moves to exempt COs from both military and non-combatant service;
- the numbers of COs and their treatment.
(Nonetheless, Bobbie Oliver (1997: 87-8) in her book Peacemongers suggests
these Department of the Army figures are inaccurate and probably only cover
the period to December 1943.)
Australia sent members of its permanent
forces in 1950-1953 to fight in Korea under the United Nations flag against the
North Korean and Chinese. Technically, the troops had to volunteer to serve there.
Prime Minister Menzies then adopted a policy of only enrolling into the services
men prepared to serve wherever they were sent, and asking existing troops to make
the same commitment (Hirst 1994: 51). As a result Australia had a fully professional
defence force. Australia also provided regular troops to support the British fighting
communist guerrillas in Malaya in the 1950s. Since conscripts were not involved
there was not significant opposition to these wars.
| Read:H. Smith, 1989.
Conscience, law and the state: Australia's approach to conscientious objection,
p. 18. |
Note the 1951 and 1953 provisions for
COs willing to undertake non-combatant service or to be fully exempted from any
form of military service.
(d)Vietnam
Conscription for overseas service became
an issue in the Vietnam War, which raised more difficult moral and political issues
than World War Two. Australia was fighting in support of the United States, which
was trying to maintain South Vietnam as a non-Communist state, and there was growing
opposition within the USA to both the goals of the war and the methods used to
fight it. The Australian Government introduced selective conscription in November
1964: all men had to register at the age of 20 for two years service, then one
in ten were chosen by a lottery system based on birth dates. Students in higher
education could get deferments until the end of their studies. Those who married
before call-up received indefinite deferment.
An Australian infantry battalion was
sent to Vietnam in 1965 and the first conscripts went in April 1966. The Labor
party, continuing its opposition to conscription for overseas service, made sending
conscripts to Vietnam a major issue in the 1966 elections. After the Liberals
won the election and the war escalated there were frequent and increasingly militant
protest demonstrations. Total numbers of Australians sent to Vietnam were relatively
small. Between 1968 and 1971 about 8,300 served in Vietnam at any one time (Ross
1983: 72). Army figures in 1972 showed that a total of 386 were killed in action
and 2,193 wounded. The conscripts who went to Vietnam only served for one year;
187 of them were killed and 1030 wounded (Ross 1983: 77, 79). But in total 17,424
conscripts went to Vietnam and the political issues raised were both important
and controversial. One of these issues was whether COs could object to a particular
war, as opposed to war in general.
| STUDY EXERCISE 9.3
Read:H. Smith, 1989. Conscience,
law and the state: Australia's approach to conscientious objection since
1901. pp. 18-19 and 21-25.
Answer the following questions:
1.What were the legal arguments
for interpreting existing legislation to allow conscientious objection
to a particular war? Answer
2.What were the legal arguments
against such an interpretation? Answer
3.What can one deduce from the
small number of applications for CO status during the Vietnam War? Answer
4.Did the possibility of joining
the Citizen Military Forces as an alternative to the draft (a) offer young
men a genuine choice? (b)provide a fair alternative to the right to selective
conscientious objection? Answer
5.What criteria for assessing
the justness of a war were embodied in the 1983 Bill to allow the right
to selective conscientious objection? Answer
|
Some objectors to the Vietnam War became
draft resisters and refused to register at all; and Draft Resisters Unions were
set up. Refusing to register initially was punished by fines or a few weeks in
prison, but failure to report after getting a call-up notice attracted a two year
gaol sentence (Hamel-Green 1983: 101). The Government hesitated to take strong
action against draft resisters who publicly announced their refusal to comply:
only four resisters received call-up notices in 1970, but prosecutions increased
in 1971 and 1972 (Hamel-Green 1983: 120-21). Smith notes that in 1970 ways were
found to 'compel' draft resisters to go before courts which could rule on their
'possible status as conscientious objectors' (Smith 1989:23-4). Verity Burgmann
claims that by 1971 'nearly 12,000 young men had refused to register' (Burgmann
1993: 191).
The controversy over Vietnam reawakened
general interest in the Australian history of military service and conscientious
objection and in the general principles involved. The reading by Benn was written
and published in this period.
| Read:S. Benn, 1967.
Conscription and conscience. pp. 69-71. |
Note Benn's analysis of the distinction
between opposition to the Vietnam War and opposition to conscription, and his
comments on the longer history of resisting conscription to fight overseas.
5.When and
Why is Conscription Justified?
At this point, having looked at the
history of military service in Australia, it is relevant to think about the general
case for and against conscription.
| STUDY EXERCISE 9.4
Read:S. Benn, 1967. Conscription
and conscience. pp. 71-4.
Answer the following questions:
1.Why does the 'onus of proof'
rest with the advocate of conscription? Answer
2.What are the arguments for
a citizen's duty to defend his country? Answer
3.What are the arguments against
such a duty? Answer
4.What case can be made for
arguing individuals have a duty to 'defend freedom anywhere'? Answer
5.Does the government's duty
to defend the country justify universal conscription? Answer
|
If you want to consider the arguments
for and against conscription in more detail, then see Withers (1972), particularly
chapter 8, which discusses the issue in terms of justice.
6.When Should There Be an Individual
Right to Conscientious Objection?
Since 1973 when the Whitlam Labor
government legally ended conscription Australians have not had to face the personal
decisions which compulsory military service imposes. But the arguments for and
against conscription, and the case for conscientious objection does focus on
questions central to citizenship.
| STUDY EXERCISE 9.5
Read:S. Benn, 1967. Conscription
and conscience. pp. 75-80.
Answer the following questions:
1.Why might an individual have
a moral duty to refuse to do what the government commands? Answer
2.Is it undemocratic to refuse
to obey a democratically elected government? Answer
|
7.Women, Military
Service and Citizenship
In countries where republican beliefs
dominate political life, women have had particular difficulty in gaining citizenship
rights because of the image of the citizen soldier and because it has been assumed
until very recently that women are not able to fight as soldiers. But even in
societies like Australia, where liberal values flourished, women's citizenship
has often been linked in a number of ways to their contribution to national defence.
When feminists were still campaigning for women's right to vote in the nineteenth
century they quite often had to meet the argument that they had not earned it
because they would not undertake the duty of being a soldier and risk death for
their country. At that stage feminists usually responded that women's special
contribution was to bear children, itself a painful and in the past quite dangerous
activity, and to nurture good citizens.
By the twentieth century women in Australia
had the vote and had gained some individual rights, and therefore when World War
One broke out they were ready to take on a wide range of men's jobs to keep the
economy and society going as over 300,000 Australian men went overseas to fight.
Women entered the public service, banking and insurance and the police force.
They drove buses, worked in ship yards, engineering and the mines, and they also
took men's place on the land. In addition over 2000 women served overseas nursing
wounded soldiers. After the War women's competence was more widely recognised
and as Carl Bridge (1994: 12) comments: 'it is no coincidence that it was in the
1920s that women were admitted to juries... and that women began to enter local
politics'.
During World War Two women played an
even more prominent role. Women entered the Australian Women's Land Army and enrolled
to nurse the troops. During the War auxiliary women's services to the army, navy
and airforce were set up and thousands of women enlisted. Conscription of women
was discussed during 1942 and in January 1943 Manpower Regulations enabled the
authorities to direct both men and women in Australia to necessary jobs, although
the Government maintained this was not strictly conscription of women. This raised
the issue of conscientious objection, and a number of women who were members of
pacifist religious sects were sent to prison for refusing to enrol with Manpower
or for refusing to take up the jobs they were allocated to. Three Christadelphian
mothers of babies were, however, fined not imprisoned. (Oliver: 136-40)
Although there was some recognition
of women's contribution to the war effort between 1939 and 1945, their role was
overshadowed by the exploits and suffering of the men who fought. It is ironically
only after the feminist campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s and much stronger recognition
of women's right to equal citizenship, that women's role in World War Two has
been fully acknowledged in public. The 50th anniversary of the end of World War
Two was used by the Keating Government to recognise the citizenship of previously
excluded groups like women and Aborigines.
| Read:C. Stewart, 1995.
War women welcome a belated salute. Australian 26 July: 3. |
Today Australia, like other western
countries has dismantled the women's auxiliary services and integrated women into
the armed services. Women have also taken on an increasing number of roles, and
were admitted to combat related duties in 1990. After a 1992 Defence Review women
could enter about 67 per cent of army position, but were excluded from the infantry,
armoured divisions and the artillery (Weatherill 1996: 43-4). The navy and airforce
have been less restrictive. Women in the navy can serve on all types of warship
(including submarines since the new Collins Class submarines came into service
in 1997). In the airforce 99 per cent of positions have been thrown open to women
(Carter 1996: 102). Women have also taken part in United Nations peacekeeping
operations. The remaining questions concern women's access to top commands, and
in particular whether they should take part in ground combat. (This is not a very
clear category since with long range weapons women in support roles can be in
danger.)
Discussion of women's position in the
armed services is usually in terms of their equal rights as citizens to have the
opportunity to do all the jobs men do. But some feminists have argued that women
should show also exercise their duty as citizens by being willing to fight for
their country. The US National Organisation for Women took legal action (unsuccessfully)
in 1981 to try to make American women liable register for call-up on the same
basis as men.
Although many feminists have argued
for women's full participation in the armed services, either in terms of rights
or duty, other feminists have questioned whether women should play the same role
as men in the armed services. There are a number of different reasons for arguing
that women should make their contribution as citizens outside the armed forces
(and in particular should not be part of combat). Some of these reasons focus
on women's physical difference, for example their vulnerability to sexual harassment
and rape, not only by an enemy but by men in their own armed services.
But the major debate is linked to wider
disagreements over conscription and conscientious objection - whether women's
political role should be to try to reduce the risk of war and promote peace rather
than training as soldiers. Some feminists argue that women's experience as mothers
means that they are well equipped to foster peaceful attitudes, whilst others
argue that such an approach strengthens traditional beliefs that women's role
is in the home. For further discussion and references see Carter (1996).
8.Aborigines,
Military Service and Citizenship
Recognition of Aborigines as citizens
of Australia has been more difficult and even more recent than in the case of
women. The government and military attitudes to aborigines in World War Two and
the fears that they would willingly collaborate with Japanese invaders illustrate
how Aborigines were excluded from civic and political rights, the depth of white
Australian prejudices, and how unequally Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders
were treated. Some Aboriginal political organisations argued that should be allowed
to join the forces and that through doing so they could become full citizens.
Although several hundred had served overseas in the Australian Imperial Force
in World War One, the Government ignored these proposals and did not encourage
Aboriginal men to enlist (Saunders 1995: 134).
| STUDY EXERCISE 9.6
Read:K. Saunders, 1995. Inequalities
of sacrifice: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander labour in northern
Australia during the Second World War. Labour History 69: 131-46.
Answer the following questions:
1.What factors influenced government
policy on incorporating Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders into the
war effort? Answer
2.What roles did the indigenous
people play in the war effort? Answer
3.Why did the authorities fear
collaboration? Answer
4.Why was this notion of collaboration
'problematic'? Answer |
The recognition of citizen status Aborigines
since the referendum of 1967 enabled the Federal Government to legislate on Aboriginal
issues has over time also changed the position of Aborigines in relation to military
service. (They were exempted from call-up during the Vietnam War.) They can now
enlist like other citizens. The government published in 1993 a study of ethnic
representation in the Australian Defence Force. It found that Aborigines and Torres
Strait Islanders were significantly under-represented (in proportion to their
numbers in the total population) in the Air Force and Navy, but were proportionally
well-represented in the Regular Army and Army Reserves, where their local knowledge
could be of particular value (Smith 1993: 33-4). For example the army uses Aborigines'
special skills in its Norforce regiment, an intelligence and surveillance unit
whose soldiers, mainly reserves, provide an early warning trip-wire in the event
of military incursion on Australian soil (Australian Magazine 8-9 June,
1996: 34). Most of the 500 members are Aborigines.
Conclusion
This week we have considered general
questions relating to military service, conscientious objection and citizenship
and seen how debates about these issues have been framed at various stages in
Australian history. We have also noted that military service raises questions
about how members of society who are different, in terms of gender or in terms
of their historical and cultural position in society, should exercise both their
rights and their duties. Again, you may see how the traditions of liberalism and
civic republicanism apply to this issue. You have the opportunity of pursuing
whichever of these questions most interests you in the recommended reading and
essay topics.
|
Review for Week
9
Before proceeding, you ought
to review your understanding of this week's topic by:
(a) checking your responses
to the Study Exercises against those supplied in the Study
Guide, and
(b) reading again the documents
for this week and completing the related Study Questions in the
Workbook, for which there are no answers provided. |
References
Australian Freedom League. 1916. The
Conscientious Objector and Conscription. In J.M. Main, 1970. Conscription:
The Australian Debate, 1901-1970. Melbourne: Cassell, pp. 67-71.
[Benn, S.] 1967. Conscription and Conscience.
Current Affairs Bulletin 40(5): 67-80.
Bridge, C. 1994. The reason why: Australia
and the Great War. Quadrant 38(4): 11-12.
Burgmann, V. 1993. Power and Protest:
Movements for Change in Australian Society. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Carter, A. 1996. Women, military service
and citizenship. In B. Sullivan and G. Whitehouse, eds. Gender, Politics and
Citizenship in the 1990s. Sydney: UNSW Press, pp. 100-19.
Hamel-Greene, M.E. 1983. The resisters:
A history of the anti-conscription movement 1964-1972. In P. King ed. Australia's
Vietnam. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Hirst, J. 1993. Australian defence and
conscription: A re-assessment: Part I. Australian Historical Studies 25(101):
608-27.
Hirst, J. 1994. Australian defence and
conscription: A re-assessment: Part II. Australian Historical Studies 26
(102): 39-57.
Jauncey, L.C. [1935] 1968. The Story
of Conscription in Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan.
Levi, M. 1997. Consent, Dissent and
Patriotism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, J.[1689] 1988. Two Treatises
of Government. Ed. P. Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Machiavelli, N. [1521] 1977. The
Art of War. Ed. N. Wood. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Main, J.M. 1970. Conscription: The
Australian Debate, 1901-1970. Melbourne: Cassell.
Mill, J.S. [1859] 1964. Utilitarianism,
Liberty, Representative Government. Ed. A.D. Lindsay. London: Dent.
Oldfield, A. 1990. Citizenship and
Community: Civic Republicanism in the Modern World. London: Routledge.
Oliver, B. 1997. Peacemongers: Conscientious
Objectors to Military Service in Australia, 1911-1945. Fremantle: Fremantle
Arts Centre Press.
Roberts, A. 1976. Nations in Arms.
London: Chatto and Windus.
Ross, J. 1983. Australian soldiers in
Vietnam: Product and performance. In P. King ed. Australia's Vietnam. Sydney:
Allen & Unwin, pp. 72-99.
Rousseau, J-J. 1973. A discourse on
political economy. In The Social Contract and the Discourses. Ed. G.D.H.
Cole. London: Dent, pp. 115-55.
Saunders, K. 1995. Inequalities of sacrifice:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander labour in northern Australia during the
Second World War. Labour History 69: 131-46.
Shields, N.T. 1968. National service
training. In R. Forward and B. Reece, eds. Conscription in Australia. St
Lucia: University of Queensland Press, pp. 66-78.
Smith, H. 1989. Conscience, law and
the state: Australia's approach to conscientious objection since 1901. Australian
Journal of Politics and History 35(1): 13-28.
Smith, H. 1993. Minority representations
in the ADF: Does it matter? Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter August-September:
33-4.
Smythe, T. and Prasad, D. 1968. Conscription:
A World Survey. London: War Resisters' International.
Stewart, C. 1995. War women welcome
a belated salute. Australian 26 July: 3.
Tanner, T.W. 1980. Compulsory Citizen
Soldiers. Waterloo, NSW: Alternative Publishing Cooperative.
Weatherill, J.A. 1996. Gender awareness
within the Australian Defence Force. Australian Defence Force Journal 117,
March/April: 43-8.
Withers, Glenn. 1972. Conscription:
Necessity and Justice: The Case for an All Volunteer Army. Sydney: Angus and
Robertson.
Internet and On-Line
Resources
Australian
War Memorial:
This site provides a brief history of Australian military involvement in
Vietnam.
http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/conflict_vietnam.htm
![[Quiz]](../../../../img/genicons/p_test.gif)