Australian Journal of Politics and History最新文献

This study explores connections between the intellectual and political work of the first President of Czechoslovakia, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk (1850–1937), and the system of people's democracy implemented in Czechoslovakia following the end of Second World War (1945–1948). It aims to do so by delving into Masaryk's perspectives on the “social question,” his critique of Marxism, and the practical measures he implemented as an engaged politician. Additionally, this study examines how Masaryk's ideas inspired his followers, shaping their notions of advancing modern democracy beyond its liberal phase into what they termed “people's democracy.” Central to this analysis is the premise that the Czechoslovak regime of people's democracy, existing between the end of Second World War and the communist takeover in February 1948, was built upon theoretical foundations distinct from Marxist-Leninist doctrine. While people's democracy is traditionally associated with the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe post-1948, this study argues that its conceptual framework, notably different from the Stalinist model, had been formulated by Czechoslovak intellectuals well before the Soviet Union's involvement in Second World War, and implemented in Czechoslovakia after the war. Specifically, the paper highlights the contributions of Czechoslovak founding figure Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk to this intellectual evolution.

The emergence in the 1990s of voluntary repatriation as a significant new norm in the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) practice in refugee protection is often represented as something of an inevitability. Numerous scholars have suggested that the growth at UNHCR of a “repatriation culture” throughout the 1980s was principally the result of the increasing pressures of mass influx events alongside the challenges of dwindling resources and states' demands for durable solutions to successive refugee crises. In this article, we argue that these challenges offer only a partial explanation for UNHCR's turn from the cold war “exilic bias” of the international protection regime, towards the post-cold war prioritisation of repatriation. We suggest that states such as Australia, deeply concerned with the long-term outcomes of refugee flows in the late 1970s and 1980s, worked in tandem with key individuals who helped to shape the normative landscape of international protection. We identify GJL Coles as one such individual and offer a close analysis of his influence on key statements concerning voluntary repatriation throughout the 1980s. By making visible the entangled contributions of Australia and Coles, we add a hitherto missing strand to the story of how the “repatriation culture” at UNHCR, and the human rights discourse that accompanied it, emerged.

During Indonesian territorial incursions into Portuguese Timor in late 1975, five newsmen working for Australian media were killed. It became a major domestic political issue in Australia, and had potential to cause a diplomatic crisis with Indonesia. Australian diplomats needed to uncover what happened to the newsmen, while avoiding further bilateral fall-out. They sought to confirm the deaths and to recover their remains, and when the information surrounding the cause of their deaths proved contestable, they endeavoured to conduct a further enquiry to settle the issue. But to achieve this they required Indonesian cooperation to access now Indonesian-occupied East Timor. For 50 years, the circumstances of how that enquiry in April 1976 eventuated have been kept secret. That was because it was accomplished by two non-diplomats—Clive Williams, Indonesian President Soeharto's close confidant, and Bob Hawke, leader of Australia's peak trade union body. Hawke was not an emissary for the Australian Government, he was representing the more than 50% of working-age Australians who held a union membership. Williams and Hawke came to an understanding that was to the satisfaction of the Australian and Indonesian governments. This was a rare occurrence: when an unofficial exchange succeeded where diplomats failed.

The article analyses the role family networks in Australia played in Holocaust rescue before and shortly after the outbreak of World War 2. Working with sources from the official archives as well as private documents, I argue that the networks enabled hundreds of Jewish migrants and refugees to escape Europe. Furthermore, they facilitated the arrival of migrants, who otherwise would most likely have been rejected as unsuitable applicants by the Australian government. First, the article analyses the Australian immigration laws before 1941, focusing predominantly on the sponsorship pathway, which allowed Australian residents to apply for the admission of their relatives and friends. In the following parts, the article uses case studies of individual migrants and their families to demonstrate the possibilities but also limitations of the sponsorship program. It concludes that despite the limitations, family networks need to be recognised for their contribution to Holocaust rescue, and this applies also to the case study of Australia, which otherwise was for a long time not considered an ideal destination by Jewish refugees.