[Typewritten copy] Includes bibliography. 1. National self-consciousness -- 2. The development of autonomy in external affairs (until 1914) -- 3. The war and the League (until 1935) -- 4. The influence of trade -- 5. Recent foreign policy and politics.

No description available.

This thesis is about the importance of nuclear weapons to Australian defence and strategic policy in Southeast Asia between 1953 and 1973. It argues that Australia's approach to nuclear issues during this period, and its attitude towards the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons in particular, was aimed exclusively at achieving narrowly defined political objectives. Australia was thus never interested in possessing nuclear weapons, and any moves seemingly taken along these lines were calculated to obtain political concessions - not as part of a 'bid' for their acquirement. This viewpoint sits at odds with the consensus position of several focused studies of Australian nuclear policy published in the past decade. Although in general these studies correctly argue that Australia maintained the 'nuclear weapons option' until the early 1970s, all have misrepresented the motivation for this by contending that the government viewed such weapons in exclusively military terms. The claim that Australia was interested only in the military aspect of nuclear weapons does not pay due attention to the fact that defence planning was based entirely on the provision of conventional forces to Southeast Asia. Accordingly, the military was interested first and foremost with issues arising from extant conventional planning concepts, and the government was chiefly concerned about obtaining allied assurances of support for established plans. The most pressing requirement for Australia therefore was gaining sway over allied countries. However, the Australian government was never in a position to overtly influence more powerful allies against an undertaking that could escalate into limited war, and was similarly incapable of inducing its allies to retain forces in the region in spite of competing pressures. It was for this reason that Australia would seek to manipulate the nuclear weapons option. Indeed, access to such weapons offered Australia the opportunity to achieve greater integration in formulating allied planning, while the threat to manufacture them provided a means of convincing regional partners to maintain a presence in the area. The thesis therefore concludes that Australia carefully presented its options for procuring nuclear weapons to gain influence over its allies in response to strategic developments in Southeast Asia.

For thesis abstract select View Thesis Title, Contents and Abstract

Typescript (Photocopy) Errata slip inserted. Bibliography: leaves 328-347.

This is the first study of official relations between South Africa and Australia as conducted through resident High Commissions or Embassies. It reaches the conclusion that, though neither country loomed large on the other's scale of priorities, the relationship was at the outset perceived to be of greater value to Australia than to South Africa. It was initiated by the Australian government in 1945 as was the airlink which connected the two countries in 1952. Then flown by propeller-driven aircraft, the air route led to the expansion of Australian territory when the United Kingdom transferred to Australia sovereignty over the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Indian Ocean, eight hours flying time from Perth and an essential refuelling stop en route to Southern Afnca. The first Australian High Commissioner, Sir George Knowles, arrived in South Africa in August 1946. The Smuts government did not attach much value to the relationship. Pleading shortage of staff, and to the embarrassment of the Australian government, it had not reciprocated with its own appointment by the time of its fall in May 1948. On assuming office the following month the new Prime Minister, Dr Malan responded positively to an Australian reminder about the lack of a South African High Commissioner. Dr P.R. Viljoen was appointed to the position and arrived in Canberra in June 1949. The relationship lacked substance and for relatively lengthy periods in the 1950s the High Commissioner's post was left vacant on both sides. The Australian government had proposed the establishment of relations on grounds inter alia that members of the British Commonwealth should be informed about each other's attitudes, policies and problems in the work of the United Nations. Yet it was the United Nations, particularly its composition, which subjected the relationship to its greatest strains. In focusing on the role and functions of individual diplomats the study throws light on what the profession or occupation of diplomacy encompassed at the time. Also canvassed is the development of the South African and Australian Departments of External Affairs from their beginnings to the early 1960s. / D. Litt et Phil. (History)

This is the first study of official relations between South Africa and Australia as conducted through resident High Commissions or Embassies. It reaches the conclusion that, though neither country loomed large on the other's scale of priorities, the relationship was at the outset perceived to be of greater value to Australia than to South Africa. It was initiated by the Australian government in 1945 as was the airlink which connected the two countries in 1952. Then flown by propeller-driven aircraft, the air route led to the expansion of Australian territory when the United Kingdom transferred to Australia sovereignty over the Cocos (Keeling) Islands in the Indian Ocean, eight hours flying time from Perth and an essential refuelling stop en route to Southern Afnca. The first Australian High Commissioner, Sir George Knowles, arrived in South Africa in August 1946. The Smuts government did not attach much value to the relationship. Pleading shortage of staff, and to the embarrassment of the Australian government, it had not reciprocated with its own appointment by the time of its fall in May 1948. On assuming office the following month the new Prime Minister, Dr Malan responded positively to an Australian reminder about the lack of a South African High Commissioner. Dr P.R. Viljoen was appointed to the position and arrived in Canberra in June 1949. The relationship lacked substance and for relatively lengthy periods in the 1950s the High Commissioner's post was left vacant on both sides. The Australian government had proposed the establishment of relations on grounds inter alia that members of the British Commonwealth should be informed about each other's attitudes, policies and problems in the work of the United Nations. Yet it was the United Nations, particularly its composition, which subjected the relationship to its greatest strains. In focusing on the role and functions of individual diplomats the study throws light on what the profession or occupation of diplomacy encompassed at the time. Also canvassed is the development of the South African and Australian Departments of External Affairs from their beginnings to the early 1960s. / D. Litt et Phil. (History)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Honours) at Macquarie University. / Thesis (MA (Hons))--Macquarie University (Division of Humanities, Dept. of Asian Languages), 2006. / Bibliography: leaves 137-160. / Introduction -- Anglo-Japanese relations and World War One -- Fear of Japan in Australia -- William Morris Hughes -- Japan's proposal and diplomacy at Paris -- Reasons for rejection : a discussion -- Conclusion. / Japan as an ally of Britain, since the signing of Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902, entered World War One at British request. During the Great War Japan fought Germany in Asia and afforded protection to Australia. After the conclusion of the War, a peace conference was held at Paris in 1919. As a victorious ally and as one of the Five Great Powers of the day, Japan participated at the Paris Peace Conference, and proposed racial equality to be enshrined in the Covenant of the League of Nations. This Racial Equality Bill, despite the tireless efforts of the Japanese delegates who engaged the representatives of other countries in intense diplomatic negotiations, was rejected. The rejection, a debatable issue ever since, has inspired many explanations including the theory that it was a deliberate Japanese ploy to achieve other goals in the agenda. This thesis has researched the reasons for rejection and contends that the rejection was not due to any one particular reason. Four key factors: a) resolute opposition from Australian Prime Minister Hughes determined to protect White Australia Policy, b) lack of British support, c) lack of US support, and d) lack of support from the British dominions of New Zealand, Canada and South Africa; converged to defeat the Japanese proposal. Japanese inexperience in international diplomacy evident from strategic and tactical mistakes, their weak presentations and communications, and enormous delays in negotiations, at Paris, undermined Japan's position at the conference, but the reasons for rejection of the racial equality proposal were extrinsic. / Mode of access: World Wide Web. / xii, 188 leaves

[Truncated abstract] This thesis focuses on human rights in Australia’s foreign policy from 1991 to 2004 taking East Timor and Papua as case studies. It encompasses the Paul Keating years (1991 to 1996) as well as John Howard’s three consecutive terms as Prime Minister (from 1996 to 2004). As a consequence of events unfolding in this period of time, the thesis does not consider Australian foreign policy towards East Timor beyond the 1999 referendum that resulted in the separation of East Timor from Indonesia and focuses on Papua until 2004. The primary empirical aim of this thesis is to compare and contrast the two administrations’ approaches and responses to human rights abuses in East Timor and Papua. Drawing upon a variety of theoretical concepts in human rights and foreign policy, this thesis shows that incorporating a concern for human rights in the foreign policy making process is problematic because the promotion of human rights often comes into conflict with other foreign policy objectives . . . The two case studies on human rights abuses in East Timor and Papua reflect the tensions between concepts of realism and idealism in Australian foreign policy. However, the situation of East Timor shows that public pressure is required to balance the disparity of national interest and human rights. The role of public pressure has been largely absent in debates on human rights and foreign policy. While this study focuses on East Timor and Papua as case studies, the discussion of the findings has far reaching implications for Australian foreign policy and international relations, especially concerning the scholarly debate over the place of human rights in foreign policy.